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!
  • dudley0

    Nobody Important
    Rating - 100%
    99   0   0
    Mar 19, 2010
    3,741
    113
    Grant County
    In a way, I hope it doesnt do that. The constant whining and gnashing of teeth about how unfair it is that all y'all current stamp holders got screwed and the rest of us getting the same toys for "free" is unfair :crying: will be REALLY annoying. LOL
    I have two SBR and I think six can stamps.

    I would not whine a bit if they dropped any or all of the restrictions. I would end up getting a few more cans just because.

    Plus maybe I could start buying better versions. Two of my cans are store bought, the others are put together. Actually one is still non-existent because the machine shop I had available changed hands. So I bought one stamp that I have yet to utilize.
     

    cbhausen

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    128   0   0
    Feb 17, 2010
    6,395
    113
    Indianapolis, IN
    Guy Relford said on his show tonight that ATF could just go back to the original rule everyone commented on (points system).

    That would really suck the big one if they could go trolling like that and then just drop back and punt. It shouldn’t be that easy for them.
     

    JAL

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 14, 2017
    2,191
    113
    Indiana
    Guy Relford said on his show tonight that ATF could just go back to the original rule everyone commented on (points system).

    That would really suck the big one if they could go trolling like that and then just drop back and punt. It shouldn’t be that easy for them.
    You beat me to the punch on this one. The rule was struck down on the APA (Administrative Procedures Act) aspect of it, not its constitutionality -- that the final rule was not a logical outgrowth of the proposed one that attracted massive comments. IOW, the District Court ruled that BATFE didn't comply with requirements of the APA, and therefore the issuance of the rule was illegal. That is very true. The District Courts are generally bound by a principle of judicial economy, that if a Constitutional Question can be avoided, it should be avoided -- and let it percolate up to SCOTUS to deal with Constitutionality it if it's appealed that far. Thus the BATFE could just take the tactic of letting this one stand, going back, and reissuing another rule that would allegedly comply with the APA. This is one of the reasons nearly all lawsuits of this type will raise multiple issues, not just 2A & 14A constitutionality. It's BATFE's move. Making popcorn to see what Detttelbach, Garland and the West Wing WOKE Minions with their Biden sock puppet do next.
     

    Site Supporter

    INGO Supporter

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    525,764
    Messages
    9,825,840
    Members
    53,917
    Latest member
    Hondolane
    Top Bottom