New BATF ruling on stabilizing braces today

[JAL]

Swamp is ALWAYS going to protect its own. PERIOD!

As GFGT stated... nothing will happen. Anyway- its all political theater so they can say we tried.

If I wasn't so old I would run for office on a single message... TERM F'ING LIMITS! Use pics of Pelosi, Shumer, Mitch, Feinstein, everyone of them thats been in too long as poster children for term limits. If someone was opposed to term limits then they are a swamp creature and should not hold office.

I'm off my soap box...

It would send a message to the courts about the sense of Congress . . . in the House . . . regarding the ATF rule. I would expect plaintiffs to file motions for their respective courts to take notice of it. Would that have any influence? Hard to predict. Depends on the judge(s).

 

[BigRed]

In the end it will be decided in a court.

In the end, it will be decided by the free will of the individual.

 

[JAL]

NRA defends members from Biden’s pistol brace crackdown.

NRA has intervened in a legal challenge to the pistol brace rule by filing a legal brief in Texas. The organization aims to protect its members from the ATF's implementation of the rule, which it beli

www.conservativenewsdaily.net

Filed in: Rainier Arms LLC v. Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (3:21-cv-00116), Northern District of Texas.
Includes Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) as one of the original plaintiffs.

NRA filed four documents with the court, two of which are readily available:

Motion to Intervene and for Preliminary Injunction:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.343209/gov.uscourts.txnd.343209.69.0.pdf

Brief in Support of the Motion (cited above):
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.343209/gov.uscourts.txnd.343209.70.0.pdf

Browsed through them quickly. My take on it . . .

NRA is being barraged by members calling, and being browbeaten publicly in various social media, about its members not receiving injunctions like FPC, SAF and GOA did, asking WHERE the NRA is, and WHY they can't get any injunctive relief. They're a Johnny-come-lately to the party after other organizations did the heavy legal lifting. Part of their filings are claiming the motion is "timely filed" and justifying their "intervention", citing their members (350,000 in Texas and 4 Million nationally) are being just as irreparably damaged as the named plaintiff's membership. That would be SAF members in this lawsuit. It obviously implies FPC and GOA as well in their lawsuits. They're asking the court in this case to extend its injunction to cover their members.

NRA is not asking to be added as a named plaintiff, only to be added as a party to the injunction. That could backfire regarding this court's injunction if the court takes umbrage with NRA attempting to coattail onto the injunction after the fact, which it's clearly doing. NRA has had a habit of sticking it's nose into things late in the game and mucking it up. One of the more recent was the Constitutional Carry Bill in North Carolina. All three courts have made it clear they're not wanting to issue a nationwide injunction covering everyone in the country, only named plaintiffs, including organization members (nationally). If the court grants them intervenor status and extends the injunction to them, expect a an immediate and massive dogpile of countless motions to intervene from every Tom, Dick and Harry, asking for the injunction to be extended to them, in this or in the GOA lawsuit. (FPC lawsuit is sitting at 5th Circuit.) Some might cheer this on as a step toward forcing a court to do what they wanted, a nationwide blanket injunction. I could easily see a court getting pissed and vacating their preliminary injunction to put a stop to having to deal with an endless avalanche of intervention motions. NRA is making a dangerous move in this. They should have been one of the named plaintiffs from the outset, or filed their own lawsuit.

EDIT:
Oh, wait, NRA was issuing press announcements and stating in interviews they had filed one in North Dakota. OOPS! That's the FRAC plus 25 Sate AG lawsuit and NRA isn't a named plaintiff in it. That one hasn't addressed the motion for prelim injunction yet (neither granted nor denied).

 

[JAL]

NAGR (National Association for Gun Rights) made some interesting remarks about ATF's rule and what could happen to the 255,162 who didn't pay $200 when they registered their braced pistol as an SBR. Claims if the rule is overturned which includes the waiver of the tax stamp fee, ATF will come around to collect $200 from the 255,162 who are no longer covered by the tax waiver. I'm very skeptical and don't buy into the scenario he paints.

Of note to me was his remark at the end when he states NAGR will soon be filing their own Pistol Brace Rule lawsuit. They're not a huge organization, smaller than GOA, and have several lawsuits in progress, including the Connecticut AWB/Magazine, and Hawaii's AWB/Magazine bans.

 

[actaeon277]

NAGR seems to just be a money raising scam.

 

[JAL]

NAGR seems to just be a money raising scam.

They have ongoing Federal lawsuits attempting to get AWB and Mag bans struck down in Colorado, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Illinois, and Hawaii. I'm lookin up the cases now. They just had a hearing in the Connecticut case. Following are five current cases NAGR launched in 2022. Pulled them up searching for NAGR in Court Listener. Not a comprehensive list. There are probably a few more. I believe NAGR is part of the multiple Illinois AWB/Magazine cases (Goldman v. Highland Park) consolidated before the 7th Circuit (Bevis v. Naperville). Doesn't seem like a grift to me.

National Association for Gun Rights v. Lopez (1:22-cv-00404),
District Court, D. Hawaii: Weapons and magazine bans
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64952180/national-association-for-gun-rights-v-lopez/

National Association for Gun Rights v. Lamont (3:22-cv-01118),
District Court, D. Connecticut: Weapons and magazine bans
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64949692/national-association-for-gun-rights-v-lamont/

Goldman v. City of Highland Park, Illinois (1:22-cv-04774)
District Court, N.D. Illinois: Weapons and magazine bans
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64952500/goldman-v-city-of-highland-park-illinois/

Robert Bevis v. City of Naperville (23-1353)
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit: Weapons and magazine bans
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66859449/robert-bevis-v-city-of-naperville/

Capen v. Campbell (1:22-cv-11431)
District Court, D. Massachusetts: Weapons and magazine bans
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64952515/capen-v-campbell/

 

[JAL]

4th Preliminary Injunction was issued on May 31st in Northern District of Texas, Amarillo Division, in the "Britto" case filed by the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty (WILL) . . .

Britto v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (2:23-cv-00019)
District Court, N.D. Texas, Amarillo Division: Preliminary Injunction
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.372602/gov.uscourts.txnd.372602.59.0.pdf

---

5th Preliminary Injunction was issued today, June 7th, in Eastern District of Texas in the "Watterson" case filed by the Texas Public Policy Foundation.

Watterson v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (4:23-cv-00080)
District Court, E.D. Texas: Preliminary Injunction
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txed.219996/gov.uscourts.txed.219996.37.0.pdf

---

Don't know how I missed the Britto injunction ordered on May 31st. Just caught up with it today. Came across it today via a YouTube video (radio interview) that popped up as one I might be interested in. These two are similar to the other two cases for SAF and GOA on the coattails of the FPC's Mock v. Garland case sitting in the 5th Circuit.

 

[DadSmith]

Hunters Against the Pistol Brace Ban | Gun Owners of America

forms.gunowners.org

This time hunters and anyone who thinks they may be a hunter

 

[JAL]

9th Federal lawsuit filed today in Northern District of Texas by NAGR.
As I had commented about a couple days ago, the National Association for Gun Rights filed its lawsuit. This makes nine that I'm aware of. Texas Gun Rights is NAGR's local state affiliate organization. Both organizations are named plaintiffs. NAGR is also currently pursuing "Assault Weapon" and "High Capacity Magazine" bans in a half-dozen or more Federal lawsuits scattered across the country.

Texas Gun Rights, Inc v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (4:23-cv-00578), District Court, N.D. Texas
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67487389/texas-gun-rights-inc-v-bureau-of-alcohol-tobacco-firearms-and/

Just filed today, so there's nothing yet but the 26 page complaint document. Contains much the same arguments made in the other lawsuits Attorneys for Wisc. Institute for Law and Liberty (WILL), a plaintiff in another of the lawsuits, are involved in this one, even though they're not a named plaintiff. One of their attorneys was among the several who signed the complaint. An interesting read for legal geeks.

For those who find 26 pages of legal-speak is TL/DR, this is the Reader's Digest Condensed Bullet Summary

• RULE CONFLICTS WITH THE STATUTE
  Does not conform to NFA and GCA "rifle" definition; it creates new definition not in the statutes
• ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS
  A decade of repeated statements/letters from ATF state they're legal pistols, not SBRs
• VOID FOR VAGUENESS
  A reasonable person cannot determine from the lengthy rule whether a particular brace makes a firearm an SBR; there's no objectively measurable criteria given; implies "Rule of Lenity" makes the rule unenforceable and illegal
• SEPARATION OF POWERS
  Must have clear Congressional authority; cites 2022 SCOTUS West VA v EPA decision; rule not enacted by Congress
• VIOLATION OF SECOND AMENDMENT
  Fails "Common Use" test in SCOTUS' "Heller" decision, and "History/Tradition" test in SCOTUS' "Bruen" decision
• VIOLATION OF THE NONDELEGATION DOCTRINE
  ATF claims authority delegated by Congress and purports to redelegate that authority to ATF staff to write/rewrite criminal law and single-handedly determine what constitutes a crime (only Congress can do that)

Complaint PDF:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.377759/gov.uscourts.txnd.377759.1.0.pdf

Recap on the other eight: nothing new of significance in them.
Happy reading.

 

[JAL]

National Association of Gun Rights YouTube video about their lawsuit . . .




In other notes . . .
Received a call from my House Rep's office today, after sending an email yesterday. Had a nice conversation with the staffer that called me. Was told there are 188 co-sponsors to House Joint Resolution 44 nullifying the Pistol Brace Rule (if I recalled the number correctly). I'm concluding the avalanche of calls and emails House Reps have been receiving about House Joint Resolution were part of the tipping point to get Speaker McCarthy to schedule the floor vote on it next Tuesday, combined with the Conservative Caucus hitting the emergency brakes on House business until he agreed to.

 

[Alamo]

… Claims if the rule is overturned which includes the waiver of the tax stamp fee, ATF will come around to collect $200 from the 255,162 who are no longer covered by the tax waiver. I'm very skeptical…

After the past decade I‘m not so skeptical. They’ll probably tried to add interest and penalties too.

Anyway, thanks for doing these summaries, they are very helpful and interesting.

 

[JAL]

The Nine Current Cases:
As links to these are now scattered throughout this 69 web page thread, here are the basic Court Listener links to all nine of the Pistol Brace Rule lawsuits I'm aware of. These links take you to their respective "Minute Entries" which contain all the actions taken on a case since its inception. If you want to see the latest action on it, scroll to the bottom of the entries (highest number). As of today, they are in the middle of brief filings with retorts to the brief filings, and retorts to the retorts to the brief filings. Never underestimate how many forests can be slain by a court case, especially a federal one.

1. Rainier Arms LLC v. BATFE, Northern District of Texas, Dallas Div (plus Second Amendment Foundation)
   https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/29113985/rainier-arms-llc-v-bureau-of-alcohol-tabacco-firearms-and-explosives/
   
   
2. FRAC v Garland, North Dakota District, Western Div
   https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66802066/firearms-regulatory-accountability-coalition-inc-v-garland/
   
   
3. Texas v. BATFE, Southern District of Texas, Victoria Div (plus GOA)
   https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66800895/state-of-texas-v-bureau-of-alcohol-tobacco-firearms-and-explosives/
   
   
4. Mock v. Garland, Northern District of Texas (plus FPC)
   • District Court:
     https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66774568/mock-v-garland/
   • 5th Circuit Court of Appeals:
     https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67115921/mock-v-garland/
5. Britto v. BATFE, Northern District of Texas, Amarillo Div (plus Wisc. Institute for Law and Liberty)
   https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66772401/britto-v-bureau-of-alcohol-tobacco-firearms-and-explosives/
   
   
6. Watterson v. BATFE, Eastern District of Texas (plus Texas Public Policy Foundation)
   https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66772719/watterson-v-bureau-of-alcohol-tobacco-firearms-and-explosives/
   
   
7. Colon v. BATFE, Middle District of Florida (plus 2nd Amendment Armory, a gun store; FudBusters YouTube Creator)
   https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66780426/colon-v-bureau-of-alcohol-tobacco-firearms-and-explosives/
   
   
8. Miller v. Garland, Eastern District of Virginia (Alexandria Division)
   https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67405711/miller-v-garland/
   
   
9. Texas Gun Rights, Inc v. BATFE, Northern District of Texas (plus National Association for Gun Rights)
   https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67487389/texas-gun-rights-inc-v-bureau-of-alcohol-tobacco-firearms-and/

A few of pieces of jargon:

• Notice of Appearance: Cases are always named for the parties involved, e.g. plaintiff, defendant, respondent, etc. Attorneys for them must notify the court who they are and who they're representing, including how they can be contacted, and where to send documents relevant to the case. Once an attorney "appears" for one of the parties, EVERYTHING should be served on that attorney, NOT their client. In addition, an attorney MUST request permission from the court to stop representing a client (in that case) with a "Motion to Withdraw" and isn't off the hook in that representation unless the court grants that motion. This is to prevent an attorney from abandoning a client midstream and suddenly leaving them without representation. Usually granted, but occasionally a court won't grant it until the attorney explains what's going on. In these cases, Federal Government attorneys in particular are often rotated out to cover some other need elsewhere, and they're replaced by a different one. Not as common, but same happens in some of the plaintiff organizations. In some criminal cases, a court has denied the motion (rare, but has happened). Frequent attorney changes are frowned on by courts as it can create some chaos in proceedings if a new one isn't up to speed on what has occurred and where it's headed in the court.
• Pro Hac Vice: an attorney asking for permission to appear before a court for which he's not a member of its bar. Very common in Federal cases like this with government attorneys in particular representing the Federal Government.
• Notice of Supplemental Authority: a request by a party for the court to take note of an action or order related to the case at hand in a different jurisdiction that helps justify what they're asking the court to do in their case. When the 5th Circuit issued its Preliminary Injunction for Mock v. Garland, all the plaintiffs in the other cases immediately filed one of these citing that injunction. If a court were to deny a preliminary injunction, you can bet your bippy the Federal Government would immediately file one citing it in every similar lawsuits (and they have).
• Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages: courts have page limits on motions, briefs, memoranda, etc. The rules of the specific court will stipulate the limit. Some also have word count limits. This is to prevent someone from showing up with a tractor trailer of banker's boxes filled with paper, or terabytes in electronic form comprising tens of thousands of pages in a brief with all its appendices and supplements. Microsoft did this decades ago in the Justice Department's Anti-Trust lawsuit that was similar to the one that broke up AT&T into all the "Baby Bell" companies. Unless one has leave to exceed these limits, the court's clerk will immediately reject the filing as non-compliant. When granted by the judge, there will be a new, expanded page limit. One is expected to explain why they cannot fit their filing within the page limit. From what I've seen, the Federal Government is the most frequent user of this in these cases as they want to fling all the different kinds of pasta they can at the kitchen wall in hopes something, anything, will stick. When an attorney requests "Leave" from the court for something, he's requesting permission, an archaic use and definition.
• Interlocutory Appeal: an appeal to a higher court made prior to a final judgement or order in the lower court. Rarely done, and rarely does the higher court act on it when one is made. Circumstances for one must be extraordinarily compelling and the party making one must justify it. If granted, it has a higher court sticking its nose into what's going one in a lower one before the case is finished there, and it adds to the higher court's docket to hear the appeal -- which could be rendered moot by the time the case is ended in the lower court, wasting the higher court's time. This is why Amy Coney Barrett entertained the interlocutory appeal from the 7th Circuit recently, issued an order for briefs to explain what's going on with a deadline for them, and then turned down the appeal after the 7th Circuit greatly accelerated its docket to get the case moving expeditiously. The 7th Circuit did that knowing it would most likely get her out of their hair.
• Sua Sponte: A court taking notice of a significant court decision or other significant court action elsewhere on its own volition, without one of the parties asking the court to make note of it, or making a citation of it in a pleading. A multiple judge panel would use "nostra sponte" and a motion a court makes to itself is "moto sponte" (very nearly all motions are made by the lawsuit parties). Any time you see "sponte" used, it's the court doing something on its own volition that would normally be done by one of the parties, not the court itself. The Latin word preceding it tells what the action is.
• Malum In Se: crimes that is or should be inherently understood to be one on its face. A blatant example is robbing a bank using a deadly weapon. Also includes non-violent "white collar" crimes such as fraudulent Social Security and Medicare claims. One may see "mala in se".
• Malum Prohibitum: a crime that is merely a crime because there's a criminal statute or ordinance prohibiting the behavior. It's not inherently harming anyone. An example is not shoveling one's sidewalk after a snowfall, or mowing one's lawn allowing it to grow a foot tall (some jurisdictions class these as infractions with fines similar to traffic infractions). This and the preceding term may appear eventually in the pleadings. IMHO, the pistol brace rule, and SBRs or SBSs without NFA tax stamps fall into this bucket. BATFE would argue differently that they're inherently EXTREMELY dangerous, a Clear and Present Danger, threatening Democracy itself -- that only nefarious miscreants and reprobates with evil deeds planned or already afoot would circumvent NFA SBR registration and tax stamp requirements with a Pistol Brace, making possessing a braced pistol malum in se.

 

[DadSmith]

@JAL
I really appreciate all the information you post.
Keep it up. Very informative.

 

[nonobaddog]

@JAL
Yes, thank you very much. That is obviously a lot of work.

 

[mcapo]

@JAL
I really appreciate all the information you post.
Keep it up. Very informative.

Absolutely. JAL has been more informative than any other media source on this issue.

 

[JAL]

@JAL
I really appreciate all the information you post.
Keep it up. Very informative.

@JAL
Yes, thank you very much. That is obviously a lot of work.

Absolutely. JAL has been more informative than any other media source on this issue.

Thanks . . .
Just trying to spread factual information and provide some insight about how the court systems work in general. Most of the YouTubers are clickbait, some more so than others, and they range from histrionics to some decent info, even if it's legal geek-speak and not very concise. The courts don't move quickly, and while we might want rapid results, hasty courts can screw things up more than they already do.

 

[Alamo]

Ditto, ditto, and ditto.

 

[BiscuitsandGravy]

Ditto, ditto, and ditto.

And ditto.

Jal should start his own Yt channel called 'Just the Facts'.

 

[Magyars]

In the end, it will be decided by the free will of the individual.

 

[JAL]

9th Federal lawsuit . . . in Northern District of Texas by NAGR.

Texas Gun Rights, Inc v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, District Court, N.D. Texas
. . .
Attorneys for Wisc. Institute for Law and Liberty (WILL), a plaintiff in another of the lawsuits, are involved in this one, even though they're not a named plaintiff. One of their attorneys was among the several who signed the complaint.
. . .

Some additional digging on the status of this one found that NAGR contracted with WILL for some of the legal services needed to file and proceed with the lawsuit. WILL is acting on behalf of NAGR and is representing NAGR in this lawsuit, almost identical to an individual client hiring a lawyer or law firm to represent them. Thus, they're not a named plaintiff, they're an "attorney" representing them in addition to NAGR's in-house attorneys. WiLL is a named plaintiff in the Britto v. BATFE lawsuit. I don't know how common that is, but I've not seen it before in my plowing through court cases. Nevertheless, it makes sense if another firm can provide required services that spares undue travel or other expenses in the primary firm.