New BATF ruling on stabilizing braces today

[DadSmith]

So is this saying any member of Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc no matter the join date cannot be prosecuted for having a braced AR, AK, Shotgun pistol?

If that is true I imagine they may have a membership explosion, and for a good cause. They need the extra income to continue the fight.

@JAL

 

[JAL]

So is this saying any member of Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc no matter the join date cannot be prosecuted for having a braced AR, AK, Shotgun pistol?

If that is true I imagine they may have a membership explosion, and for a good cause. They need the extra income to continue the fight.

@JAL

Only applies to braced pistols -- ATF never addressed "braced shotguns" - at least considering how a "shotgun" is defined by law.

 

[JAL]

I will be checking the sister lawsuits that were coattailing on Mock v. Garland.

 

[BiscuitsandGravy]

This passage from page 21 may make you smile... if we can only dream.

 

[JAL]

This passage from page 21 may make you smile... if we can only dream.

View attachment 303427

This was not lost on me when I read it, but I wouldn't make too much of it just yet. O'Connor didn't dwell on or embellish on it in his discussion. He tap danced a bit around some of the 2A while making some 2A related remarks in his dicta. That said, there are some cracks forming in the SBR and SBS provisions of the NFA. I've got a sneaking suspicion O'Connor is amenable to an SBR/SBS challenge at some later point, just not yet, especially in a Prelim Injunction phase. Case hasn't been fully briefed and argued yet. That's my take on it.
Regarding that passage, I'm going to and see where it goes. Like you, I believe NFA SBR and SBS regulation should never have been enacted, along with most of the rest of it. In the meantime there are currently hundreds of thousands (or more) continuing to enjoy their braced pistols.

 

[jspy5]

JAL, Thanks for again summarizing rather lengthy legal document and issue.

ETA: here’s the conclusion to the order:

=========================================

IV. CONCLUSION

The Court holds that each Plaintiff has demonstrated entitlement to preliminary injunctive relief against the Government Defendants’ enforcement of the Final Rule that the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit determined to be invalid under the Administrative Procedure Act. For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the Motion for Preliminary Injunction.

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that the Government Defendants—the Attorney General of the United States; the United States Department of Justice; the Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives—and each of their respective officers, agents, servants, and employees—are hereby:

1) ENJOINED from implementing and/or enforcing against the Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc. and all of its members the provisions in 27 C.F.R. §§ 478.11 and 479.11 that the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has determined are unlawful;

2) ENJOINED from implementing and/or enforcing against Maxim Defense Industries, LLC and any downstream customers of Maxim Defense Industries, LLC (including all direct consumer purchasers and all intermediary distributors, dealers, retailers, and OEM purchasers of Maxim Defense products, and any of their respective customers) the provisions in 27 C.F.R. §§ 478.11 and 479.11 that the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has determined are unlawful;

3) ENJOINED from implementing and/or enforcing against William T. Mock and any of his family members the provisions in 27 C.F.R. §§ 478.11 and 479.11 that the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has determined are unlawful; and

4) ENJOINED from implementing and/or enforcing against Christopher Lewis and any of his family members the provisions in 27 C.F.R. §§ 478.11 and 479.11 that the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has determined are unlawful.

The injunctive relief shall not extend to any individual prohibited from possessing firearms under 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g). The injunctive relief shall take effect immediately and remain in effect pending the conclusion and final disposition of all claims and causes of action before the Court in these review proceedings. 5 U.S.C. § 705.

I see no mention of SAF which was mentioned in some of the earlier reports, so I was wondering where SAF members might stand currently.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Thanks for keeping up with this and explaining the "legelese" @JAL

 

[DadSmith]

INGO if you want to use a braced AR pistol all you have to do is join Firearms Policy Coalition at this time. It will give you back your right to use a braced AR pistol, and it will give the Firearms Policy Coalition a monetary boost to help continue the fight.

Firearms Policy Coalition

FPC is a coalition of hundreds of thousands of Patriots organizing to take back our Constitution and defend the inalienable, fundamental, and individual right to keep and bear arms.

www.firearmspolicy.org

If my understanding is wrong correct me.

 

[JAL]

Checking now on some of the other cases filed in Texas. This may come piecemeal as I get the chance to check stuff.

Temporary Injunction Issued on Oct 4th (yesterday) by [drum roll] Reed O'Connor . . .
Texas Gun Rights Inc. and National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) v. BATFE
Essentially the same as the provisions issued on Tuesday for FPC in Mock v. Garland. Covers all TGR and NAGR members nationally. Much shorter than the Mock document. Reed O'Connor is rapidly headed for Sainthood.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.377759/gov.uscourts.txnd.377759.36.0.pdf

NAGR already has a YouTube video posted about it. As expected from any of the orgs, he puts in a plug for NAGR membership. Quotes relevant portions of O'Connor's dicta from various pages.




Other Cases:
Nothing yet on the Rainier Arms / Second Amendment Foundation . . . but expect something soon.
Same with GOA/GOF / State of Texas . . . inaccessible docs filed this week . . . but expect something soon.

This week hopefully? These are both in Texas but not being heard by Reed O'Connor, so their courts will have to write their Prelim Injunction decisions that were previously hinging on 5th Circuit and FPC lawsuit . . . and the 5th Circuit's Injunction has expired.
Stay tuned

 

[JAL]

Re: Rainier Arms / Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) et al v BATFE

Judge Jane Boyle issued order today (Oct. 5th) extending her Preliminary Injunction, which was based on the now expired 5th Circuit injunction, until October 13th, which is next Friday. This is undoubtedly to allow herself time to write her own opinion thoroughly with enough diligence to withstand scrutiny and address all plaintiff claims. I suspect she will also issue a Preliminary Injunction, knowing what the 5th Circuit did with FPC's nearly identical Mock v. Garland case. Doesn't surprise me the other one with NAGR that was also before Reed O'Connor came out first yesterday. He already knew what he was going to do with the NAGR case based on what he did with the FPC decision.

Not much to read, it's a short one-line electronic order in the Docket Minute Entries. Scroll down to #99 if you want to read it.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/29113985/rainier-arms-llc-v-bureau-of-alcohol-tabacco-firearms-and-explosives/

Stay tuned until Friday next week on the SAF case.

(Nothing yet on GOA case before Judge Drew Tipton; I've seen nothing yet about BATFE appealing the Mock/FPC Prelim Injunction)

 

[JAL]

Thanks for keeping up with this and explaining the "legelese" @JAL

Thanks -- I'm trying but need to remind everyone I'm not a lawyer (INAL) . . . just someone who's personally been through litigation at state and federal levels . . . an eye opener in how it works, and in how dysfunctional it can be with some judges who do what they damned well please in spite of statutes and case law. I kept up with what my attorneys did in detail versus many who just sit back and ask to be awakened at the end of the trip. It's a paper blizzard.

 

[indyblue]

2) ENJOINED from implementing and/or enforcing against Maxim Defense Industries, LLC and any downstream customers of Maxim Defense Industries, LLC (including all direct consumer purchasers and all intermediary distributors, dealers, retailers, and OEM purchasers of Maxim Defense products, and any of their respective customers) the provisions in 27 C.F.R. §§ 478.11 and 479.11 that the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has determined are unlawful;

Does this mean if you buy one from them you are protected by this?

What are. downstream customers? Does that mean future customers?

 

[JAL]

Does this mean if you buy one from them you are protected by this?

What are. downstream customers? Does that mean current and future customers?

Yes . . . to all of the above. It would be worthless in terms of relief for Maxim Defense Industries if it wasn't. Maxim Defense sells to distributors (wholesalers) and FFL gun dealers, along with online direct sales. The distributors have customers, as do FFL gun dealers. O'Connor worded it to cover them all. By "downstream" it means the entire chain from Maxim Defense to end user/owner, inclusively regardless of path taken. The relief to Maxim Defense is to allow them to continue conducting business unfettered by the enjoined ATF Rule. If it didn't do that, they could sell, but nobody could buy. There's discussion of that in O'Connor's lengthy dicta. Maxim Defense is hanging on by a very thin thread financially.

 

[Alamo]

If someone is covered by membership in more than one organization and/or more than one injunction, can I, er, that person bank a couple of them for use later? Asking for a friend.

 

[JAL]

If someone is covered by membership in more than one organization and/or more than one injunction, can I, er, that person bank a couple of them for use later? Asking for a friend.

I'm a member of GOA, FPC, SAF and NAGR. Sharing the financial love with the organizations "sticking it to The Man" on various 2A fronts, not just this one. Doesn't really matter which "card" you pull out that's covered by a current injunction. Nothing yet on GOA's being continued. As stated above . . . SAF continues at least until Friday, Oct 13th on which I expect a court order. The two solidly in place as of today are FPC and NAGR. One of the reasons I've been trying to keep my finger on the pulse of four of the Pistol Brace lawsuits in particular is the fluidity that Preliminary Injunctions can have. Given what the 5th Circuit ruled already, I expect the current ones to be relatively stable for a while, but nothing is ever 100% certain. Hope that helps some.

 

[Noble Sniper]

INGO if you want to use a braced AR pistol all you have to do is join Firearms Policy Coalition at this time. It will give you back your right to use a braced AR pistol, and it will give the Firearms Policy Coalition a monetary boost to help continue the fight.

Firearms Policy Coalition

FPC is a coalition of hundreds of thousands of Patriots organizing to take back our Constitution and defend the inalienable, fundamental, and individual right to keep and bear arms.

www.firearmspolicy.org

If my understanding is wrong correct me.

I don’t pretend to understand a lot of the legalese etc…. So you’re saying for the moment if you belong to this organization your AR15 with an arm brace is safe? Does that also apply to PCC’s that are not AR15’s? Just curious. Thanks

 

[DadSmith]

I don’t pretend to understand a lot of the legalese etc…. So you’re saying for the moment if you belong to this organization your AR15 with an arm brace is safe? Does that also apply to PCC’s that are not AR15’s? Just curious. Thanks

Read JAL post about this one.

 

[JAL]

Read JAL post about this one.

Thanks.
What @DadSmith said.
The Reed O'Connor four part injunction order itself - at the end of his entire decision - was quoted above by @Alamo. Read it:

https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/new-batf-ruling-on-stabilizing-braces-today.530629/post-9695775

That one covers FPC members. The one, also by Reed O'Connor, covering NAGR members is identical regarding NAGR members. "27 C.F.R. §§ 478.11 and 479.11" is the ATF's Pistol Brace Rule as promulgated in the Code of Federal Regulations (aka C.F.R.).

 

[Noble Sniper]

Thank you

 

[tackdriver]

. . . just someone who's personally been through litigation at state and federal levels . . . an eye opener in how it works, and in how dysfunctional it can be with some judges who do what they damned well please in spite of statutes and case law. I kept up with what my attorneys did in detail versus many who just sit back and ask to be awakened at the end of the trip. It's a paper blizzard.

Amen...Well said...Truth!

It sounds like we've got Very similar experiences. I can't tell you how many times I was told "Yes, you're right, that's exactly what the law says, and what it means - but the Judge is NEVER going to do that." (even when the law read "shall", and it should have been mandatory).

( me - exercizing self control not to go on a long rant that's not the point of this awesome thread.)