User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/31/2023 9:16:13 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Reference numbers going up by 30 per minute right now... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2023 9:21:27 PM EDT
[#2]
What other organizations have a pending case before a potentially friendly judge?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2023 9:21:45 PM EDT
[#3]
SAF's injunction was also granted, for SAF and its members.
Kharn |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2023 9:26:57 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What other organizations have a pending case before a potentially friendly judge? FPC, SAF, GOA, Gun Owners Foundation and Texas have all been granted injunctions. Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, WV, ND, AL, AK, AR, FL, GA, ID, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, MS, MO, MT, NE, NH, OK, SC, SD, TN, UT, VA, and WY v Garland (aka FRAC v Garland) has NOT been granted an injunction by the court in North Dakota. Kharn |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2023 9:46:47 PM EDT
[#5]
How does an injunction from the 5th circuit (lets pick the FPC case as I'm a member) apply to someone outside the 5th circuit's district?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2023 9:49:28 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: SAF's injunction was also granted, for SAF and its members.
Kharn I’m triple vaxxed against the brace virus! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2023 9:50:02 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How does an injunction from the 5th circuit (lets pick the FPC case as I'm a member) apply to someone outside the 5th circuit's district? It is enjoining a federal agency by a federal judge, he has authority to do so. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2023 9:57:07 PM EDT
[#8]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2023 10:06:11 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I’m triple vaxxed against the brace virus! Me too 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2023 10:10:55 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It is enjoining a federal agency by a federal judge, he has authority to do so. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: How does an injunction from the 5th circuit (lets pick the FPC case as I'm a member) apply to someone outside the 5th circuit's district? It is enjoining a federal agency by a federal judge, he has authority to do so. Excellent. Was just curious, as I thought when the 5th circuit (and others) ruled on other cases - like the bumpstock ban smackdown - I thought those only applied to the states in the court's district. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2023 10:16:01 PM EDT
[#11]
Gave my $30.
FATF! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2023 10:17:53 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: FPC, SAF, GOA, Gun Owners Foundation and Texas have all been granted injunctions. Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, WV, ND, AL, AK, AR, FL, GA, ID, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, MS, MO, MT, NE, NH, OK, SC, SD, TN, UT, VA, and WY v Garland (aka FRAC v Garland) has NOT been granted an injunction by the court in North Dakota. Kharn Are we still waiting or have they stated no preliminary injunction for you? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2023 10:26:01 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Are we still waiting or have they stated no preliminary injunction for you? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: FPC, SAF, GOA, Gun Owners Foundation and Texas have all been granted injunctions. Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, WV, ND, AL, AK, AR, FL, GA, ID, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, MS, MO, MT, NE, NH, OK, SC, SD, TN, UT, VA, and WY v Garland (aka FRAC v Garland) has NOT been granted an injunction by the court in North Dakota. Kharn Are we still waiting or have they stated no preliminary injunction for you? The court hearing FRAC has not acted, and they're a very niche group. You'd be better off giving a few bucks to FPC, SAF, or GOA. The courts hearing FPC's Mock case and all the others are in Texas. Kharn |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2023 10:28:00 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Excellent. Was just curious, as I thought when the 5th circuit (and others) ruled on other cases - like the bumpstock ban smackdown - I thought those only applied to the states in the court's district. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: How does an injunction from the 5th circuit (lets pick the FPC case as I'm a member) apply to someone outside the 5th circuit's district? It is enjoining a federal agency by a federal judge, he has authority to do so. Excellent. Was just curious, as I thought when the 5th circuit (and others) ruled on other cases - like the bumpstock ban smackdown - I thought those only applied to the states in the court's district. Judges have discretion, not sure what was asked for in that case - i.e. did the plaintiffs ask for it nationwide or just for the circuit hoping to force a circuit split and pushing it to SCOTUS. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2023 10:36:26 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I sincerely hope that's real.  Personally, I've always wanted to put "Because I can" and see if they'd approve it or not. It is a valid reason, after all.  Not quite as blunt, but still gets the point across. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2023 10:37:34 PM EDT
[#16]
Good to see so many injunctions! Hoping for an overall win considering the courts are beginning to focus on the rule making authority of other federal agencies.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2023 10:44:22 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The court hearing FRAC has not acted, and they're a very niche group. You'd be better off giving a few bucks to FPC, SAF, or GOA. The courts hearing FPC's Mock case and all the others are in Texas. Kharn Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: FPC, SAF, GOA, Gun Owners Foundation and Texas have all been granted injunctions. Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, WV, ND, AL, AK, AR, FL, GA, ID, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, MS, MO, MT, NE, NH, OK, SC, SD, TN, UT, VA, and WY v Garland (aka FRAC v Garland) has NOT been granted an injunction by the court in North Dakota. Kharn Are we still waiting or have they stated no preliminary injunction for you? The court hearing FRAC has not acted, and they're a very niche group. You'd be better off giving a few bucks to FPC, SAF, or GOA. The courts hearing FPC's Mock case and all the others are in Texas. Kharn I'm members of all but am not personally worried and don't intend to follow their illegal dictates. I am interested in the legal battle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2023 11:06:12 PM EDT
[#18]
If this all goes to shit and the ATF tries/begins to enforce this, I would not want to be one of their agents. So stupid and unnecessary. But they know this, so the real question is, “why?”
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2023 11:30:46 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Reference numbers going up by 30 per minute right now... I'm hoping this attempt at mass registration by the ATF leads some good judges to toss SBR's out of the NFA. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2023 11:34:52 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Good to see so many injunctions! Hoping for an overall win considering the courts are beginning to focus on the rule making authority of other federal agencies. Thanks to all our gun organizations and lawyers putting in the hard work to make this happen
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2023 11:36:51 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If this all goes to shit and the ATF tries/begins to enforce this, I would not want to be one of their agents. So stupid and unnecessary. But they know this, so the real question is, “why?” Bivens lawsuit |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2023 11:37:25 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm members of all but am not personally worried and don't intend to follow their illegal dictates. I am interested in the legal battle. I have a feeling you will wake up on June 1st and do whatever the f*** you wanna do? Right on. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2023 11:38:19 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: TX v ATF was granted an injunction, PDF at link It is valid for the plaintiff named Brady Brown, GOA & Gun Owners Foundation, their current members and their resident family members, and individuals employed directly by the State of Texas or its agencies. Kharn Fuck yeah. Best news I've heard all day. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2023 11:41:03 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I have a feeling you will wake up on June 1st and do whatever the f*** you wanna do? Right on. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I'm members of all but am not personally worried and don't intend to follow their illegal dictates. I am interested in the legal battle. I have a feeling you will wake up on June 1st and do whatever the f*** you wanna do? Right on. Hardly. There's work tomorrow and the next day. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2023 11:50:41 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How does an injunction from the 5th circuit (lets pick the FPC case as I'm a member) apply to someone outside the 5th circuit's district? It's a Federal (meaning national government) Court. They are dealing with a Federal agency where the issue is a National Constitutional issue. The only reason effects would not be felt nationwide, is if the Judge(s) limit the scope of a ruling, or the issue is appealed to a higher court. In this case, the issue at hand has already been sent above this district court, to an appeals court, who issued an injunction. So this judge was basically left with the option of issuing an injunction, or watching the 5th circuit appellate court do it for him. Because the FRAC case is in a different circuit, it seems likely this will be withdrawn by the ATF, shot down by district/circuit courts, or it could end up at SCOTUS if the different circuit rulings are at odds. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2023 1:01:26 AM EDT
[#26]
Man, I thought being a felon would somehow feel, I dunno, different. Oh well.
P.S.  Attached FileETA: Yes, I’m aware of the injunctions  |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2023 4:02:22 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If you just remove the brace you could still be in legal jeopardy. 27. Can I possess a pistol and unattached "stabilizing brace"? An NFA firearm need not be assembled to be regulated as such. Whether a person may be in constructive possession of an NFA firearm depends on the facts of a particular case. They've always said remove and destroy. I think the confusion came from the ATF Director's testimony at a Congressional hearing where he didn't know or failed to clearly articulate the compliance options and seemed to say the brace need not be destroyed. If ATF issued a clarification on that point I haven't seen it. 4. What are the compliance options for an individual (non-licensee) in possession of a firearm equipped with a "stabilizing brace," which is a short-barreled rifle (SBR), after the effective date of the final rule? Submit through the eForms system an Application to Make and Register a Firearm, ATF Form 1 (E-Form 1) before May 31, 2023. Permanently remove or alter the "stabilizing brace" so that it cannot be reattached and thereby removing it from regulation as a "firearm" under the NFA. Remove the short barrel and attach a 16-inch or longer rifled barrel to the firearm thus removing it from the provisions of the NFA. Turn the firearm into your local ATF office. Destroy the firearm. For more information go to How to Properly Destroy Firearms | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (atf.gov). Full ATF FAQ . ATF contradicts itself as it further stated in rule that Braces are legal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2023 4:53:07 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think that is correct, brace = stock. But I think the implication is that ATF could (would?) also view having spare stocks and an unregistered pistol w/ barrel < 16" as constructive possession of an NFA firearm, depending "on the facts of a particular case." Constructive possession only holds water if you don't have other rifles that the brace(s)/stock(s) can be used on. Of course it's the ATF so they may still charge you to punish you with the process. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2023 6:33:23 AM EDT
[#29]
So what happens if the 5th circuit rules in favor of FPC?
Braces would remain legal in the circuit states but what about the FPC members outside of that jurisdiction? Would their win as a represented member of FPC keep them legal in PA? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2023 6:50:23 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So what happens if the 5th circuit rules in favor of FPC? Braces would remain legal in the circuit states but what about the FPC members outside of that jurisdiction? Would their win as a represented member of FPC keep them legal in PA? Quote HistoryQuoted: So what happens if the 5th circuit rules in favor of FPC? Braces would remain legal in the circuit states but what about the FPC members outside of that jurisdiction? Would their win as a represented member of FPC keep them legal in PA? The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is a federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the district courts in the following federal .. Since this is a federal court, it's my understanding all members are covered regardless of location |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2023 7:59:16 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If this all goes to shit and the ATF tries/begins to enforce this, I would not want to be one of their agents. So stupid and unnecessary. But they know this, so the real question is, “why?” Just following orders |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2023 8:15:37 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Constructive possession only holds water if you don't have other rifles that the brace(s)/stock(s) can be used on. Of course it's the ATF so they may still charge you to punish you with the process. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I think that is correct, brace = stock. But I think the implication is that ATF could (would?) also view having spare stocks and an unregistered pistol w/ barrel < 16" as constructive possession of an NFA firearm, depending "on the facts of a particular case." Constructive possession only holds water if you don't have other rifles that the brace(s)/stock(s) can be used on. Of course it's the ATF so they may still charge you to punish you with the process. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2023 8:17:52 AM EDT
[#33]
So, do we honestly expect them to use this as an add on charge or do we expect active enforcement?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2023 8:27:43 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It would be interesting, if there's any actual case law relating to pistols, to see how ATF prosecutes and the courts actually view "constructive possession." I agree, but that said constructive possession is bullshit; it presumes that because you could have done something, you are guilty of having done it. And that's without getting into crimes of possession regarding certain configurations of firearms-more bullshit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2023 8:29:44 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So, do we honestly expect them to use this as an add on charge or do we expect active enforcement? Most likely the former. They may troll around at ranges to see if anyone shows up to scare everyone else by making a few examples though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2023 8:42:53 AM EDT
[#36]
Quoted: So, do we honestly expect them to use this as an add on charge or do we expect active enforcement? I think it will be mostly used as a tack on. The bigger part of this is the ATF looking at how easy/hard it will be to get people to register weapons under a "free" NFA program since the push will be a defacto AWB ban using NFA registration to stop sales as much as possible due to Form4 hassles Quoted: Most likely the former. They may troll around at ranges to see if anyone shows up to scare everyone else by making a few examples though. The Fudds who piss and moan about short rifles and rapid fire at public ranges will be the unhired tattle tales for the ATF to make some examples. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2023 9:03:19 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think it will be mostly used as a tack on. The bigger part of this is the ATF looking at how easy/hard it will be to get people to register weapons under a "free" NFA program since the push will be a defacto AWB ban using NFA registration to stop sales as much as possible due to Form4 hassles The Fudds who piss and moan about short rifles and rapid fire at public ranges will be the unhired tattle tales for the ATF to make some examples. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: So, do we honestly expect them to use this as an add on charge or do we expect active enforcement? I think it will be mostly used as a tack on. The bigger part of this is the ATF looking at how easy/hard it will be to get people to register weapons under a "free" NFA program since the push will be a defacto AWB ban using NFA registration to stop sales as much as possible due to Form4 hassles Quoted: Most likely the former. They may troll around at ranges to see if anyone shows up to scare everyone else by making a few examples though. The Fudds who piss and moan about short rifles and rapid fire at public ranges will be the unhired tattle tales for the ATF to make some examples. I will slip through when they see the suppressors and ASSume I am a caver. Ha! Only sometimes. When I have to. When I want to. When I did. Multiple times. Shit.  I should turn myself in…
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2023 9:23:39 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Thank you for this...I joined by the skin of my teeth.  I sent FPC another $50 today. They are a good organization - and unlike the NRA - they actually do stuff. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2023 9:29:06 AM EDT
[#39]
I think the BATFE knew injunctions would end up happening. This is why they issued the amnesty SBRs with conditional approval - and I have one of them. Since I have a registered SBR with them, is it an SBR or is it an illegal SBR now that the injunction has been issued? FJB and fuck the ATF. They have created a total cluster fuck here.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2023 9:37:59 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think the BATFE knew injunctions would end up happening. This is why they issued the amnesty SBRs with conditional approval - and I have one of them. Since I have a registered SBR with them, is it an SBR or is it an illegal SBR now that the injunction has been issued? FJB and fuck the ATF. They have created a total cluster fuck here. The process has always been the punishment with the gov't, this will be no different. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2023 10:02:46 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think the BATFE knew injunctions would end up happening. This is why they issued the amnesty SBRs with conditional approval - and I have one of them. Since I have a registered SBR with them, is it an SBR or is it an illegal SBR now that the injunction has been issued? FJB and fuck the ATF. They have created a total cluster fuck here. and is it a coincidence the eforms.....the message this morning... "Message: There was an error. Please try again. If the problem persists, please contact your system administrator." |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2023 10:17:26 AM EDT
[#42]
A federal judge in Texas has temporarily blocked President Biden's new regulations on pistols with stabilizing braces in response to a lawsuit from gun rights activists.
Judge Drew B. Tipton of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas on Wednesday granted a preliminary injunction against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) partially preventing the agency from enforcing its new stabilizing-brace rule. The order came on the deadline before the rule goes into effect in response to a lawsuit filed by Gun Owners of America (GOA), the Gun Owners Foundation and the State of Texas. Tipton's order follows a ruling by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in a similar case that enjoined ATF from enforcing the rule against plaintiffs including customers of Maxim Defense Industries, a pistol stabilizing-brace manufacturer, and the Firearms Policy Coalition. That decision came days before a deadline for individuals to register their pistol braces with ATF, destroy them or remove the accessories from their weapons. Those who do not comply with the regulation by May 31 will be forced to pay a fee and could face up to 10 years' imprisonment or $10,000 in fines or both, according to ATF. The critical difference in the two cases is that a non-private entity, the State of Texas, is party to this lawsuit. Former Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a motion for a preliminary injunction against ATF earlier this month, arguing the pistol-brace rule will inflict compliance costs on Texas police who own previously legal handguns with stabilizing braces and must now expend resources to register those weapons. Tipton agreed and found that Texas established standing to sue ATF and "has sufficiently shown that it will suffer irreparable harm absent a preliminary injunction enjoining the enforcement of the Final Rule." |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2023 10:27:03 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So, do we honestly expect them to use this as an add on charge or do we expect active enforcement? Active in my opinion. The government has it out for normal Americans. They want us in prison, or dead. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2023 10:29:39 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: and is it a coincidence the eforms.....the message this morning... "Message: There was an error. Please try again. If the problem persists, please contact your system administrator." I am not surprised at all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2023 2:13:31 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So, do we honestly expect them to use this as an add on charge or do we expect active enforcement? It’s usually an add on charge. Unless you have attracted direct action by the AFT. Most of the time people are found to be in possession of NFA goods when committing another crime. The AFT isn’t going to come to some shit courthouse to do anything. But the state level ADA will use it as a threat to get people to plea to the other charges. I’m not a lawyer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2023 4:48:43 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If this all goes to shit and the ATF tries/begins to enforce this, I would not want to be one of their agents. So stupid and unnecessary. But they know this, so the real question is, "why?" |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2023 4:50:26 PM EDT
[#47]
Quoted: Are we still waiting or have they stated no preliminary injunction for you? This is our case. Very friendly judge. He has not ruled yet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2023 10:26:17 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So, do we honestly expect them to use this as an add on charge or do we expect active enforcement? They know they have zero chance at a conviction with this bullshit. So even if some confused agents show up to ranges to enforce... No fed prosecutor is going to try to take it to court. Even before the injunction, it's very hard and time consuming to enforce. You actually have to have an agent, on scene, to check paperwork. And if they start doing that, guys like me will just put braces on sbrs to make it harder to figure out. IMO we will see zero enforcement, unless a brace pistol is used in a mass shooting they can politicize. It's looking like they will never even get the chance.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2023 10:36:17 PM EDT
[#49]
It was blatantly unenforceable and an illegal "rule" from the get go, lol at all the free sbr'ers diming themselves out
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2023 10:49:03 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: TX v ATF was granted an injunction, PDF at link It is valid for the plaintiff named Brady Brown, GOA & Gun Owners Foundation, their current members and their resident family members, and individuals employed directly by the State of Texas or its agencies. Kharn For you legal experts, does this mean if I have my braced pistol in my car here in Texas, I'm okay at the moment? |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
Attached File