Rodan
Member
Very weird... I responded to cmj8591's post, and now it's showing after mine...???
AFT pistol stabilizing brace rule just came down.
- Thread starter AlwaysArmed
- Start date
Some have theorized that it is essentially a full injunction because of 1st A Freedom of Speech Rights, Maxim Defense and the FPC can't be compelled to turn over customer/member lists, thus the BATFE can't actually know who is protected. Also, if everyone joined FPC, there was no stipulation that the FPC members were members at the first day of the lawsuit, or when the injunction was declared, etc. So, from a practical matter, who knows?
Also, with an injunction, one of the conditions a judge bases their decision on, is if the plaintiffs are likely to win their case based on the merits presented. From what I understand.
Last edited:
Nope, you aren't missing anything AFAIK.
The Constitutional principle of "equal protection under the law" SHOULD mean that a judicial injunction against an un-Constitutional law would apply equally to EVERYONE.
In theory, under the principles of our Constitution, we are a nation of LAWS, not a nation of MEN. Therefore, all men (and women) should receive EQUAL treatment and protection under the law in our (theoretically) blind justice system.
This is one of the most basic principles that our country was founded upon and one of the highest ideals that the US Constitution was intended to enshrine in our laws.
HOWEVER, from what I have seen recently, it seems like your political leanings (especially when you are inclined to oppose the established authorities - those people with the power to punish you for what you think) are the primary criteria that are being used to determine how you will be treated (or mis-treated) under our current "justice" system.
That is completely the opposite of the high ideal of "equal treatment under the law" - one of the principles that our country was founded on.
But that's just my opinion and analysis based on what I have seen over the last 2-3 years. I could be wrong. It certainly wouldn't be the first time.
Last edited:
Engine49guy
Member
Congress will supposedly be bringing a bill to the house floor supporting the right to own pistol braces next week, Mcarty was blocking it until there was a flood of calls.
...., If it passes the POTUS cannot VETO the bill .
...., If it passes the POTUS cannot VETO the bill .
The real fly in the ointment is getting a bill like this passed in the SENATE.
Given the current split in the House of Representatives, it will probably pass - in the House.
BUT, the next step is for it to be passed by the Senate, and given the current division of power in the Senate, that isn't very likely.
So, like so many things, it is a stalemate. It will never get passed by both branches of Congress, so it will never even make it to the the President's desk for either his signature OR his veto.
Such is the sad state of affairs in our deeply-divided country and Congress.
Engine49guy
Member
It's on the calendar for Tuesday so contact your representatives showing your support before Tuesday. After it passes Tuesday contact your Senators.
I was only half listening to Bannon discussing it as I don't have any but they commented that apparently the POTUS cannot VETO it for some reason having to do with it over riding his order banning them,
I do not know the facts behind this just saying that's what they said.
cmj8591
Member
I'm going to theorize that the gun rights organizations are playing a little fast and loose with this for the sake of marketing. If you read that letter a couple of posts up from FPC, it says that the injunction applies to our members, not JUST our members. God bless them, they surely need all they can get but rest assured, that injunction covers EVERYONE. You don't have to join any organization to be protected by this injunction.
Yeah, what you're saying aligns 100% with the principle of "equal protection under the law" - one of the fundamental principles that our country was founded on and that we are SUPPOSED to operate under.
However, can we really count on the people in positions of power in our government to actually adhere to that principle? I'm not so sure...
When you consider how differently people have been treated for basically the same kinds of "offenses" over the last couple of years, one has to wonder.
When the only distinction between what people have been charged (or not charged) with is the ideology behind what they were opposing or protesting against, NOT what they actually did in protest, and when one person gets bailed out and given a free pass, while another person gets jailed for months or even years on end, that certainly raises some serious questions about whether the concept of equal protection under the law even still applies in today's America.
Is equal protection OF ALL VIEWPOINTS under the law even a valid concept anymore? Does it still even exist"? It doesn't seem to me like it really does - in light of current events.
Just my opinion.
I've got a flintlock Blunderbuss with a 3/4"breech and 2" muzzle bell. It fires 20 00Buck .32 balls at each firing. My sentiments when it comes to firearms such as this which might also account for any SBR people may have is the same as the inscription that I want engraved on a silver escutcheon that sits on the upper side of the wrist of the gun. "Happy Is He, That Never Hears Me."
I read after the House passed the legislation to kill the ATF determination on this that Pres Biden said if it ever passed the Senate, and came to his desk, he would veto it. Seems to me that if the people want it, why would a president interfere, unless there was a specific agenda?
Sistema1927
US Veteran
that is embarassing for us as a nation. I'd say that about any president as ignorant and unable to speak clearly as him.
Yeah, well, ummmm, he ended his ignorant and misguided speech with:
"I will stand in front of each section — no, I really mean it — and if you can see the camera they can see you. It is the least consequential part of this whole meeting for you, I promise.
God save the queen, man."
More like God save US (both the United States and us as citizens).Yeah, well, ummmm, he ended his ignorant and misguided speech with:
"I will stand in front of each section — no, I really mean it — and if you can see the camera they can see you. It is the least consequential part of this whole meeting for you, I promise.
God save the queen, man."
Another court case to watch...
Gun advocates challenge Biden administration rules on handgun braces at appeals court - ABC News
Gun advocates challenge Biden administration rules on handgun braces at appeals court - ABC News
Sistema1927
US Veteran
That article begins with "Appellate court judges in New Orleans closely questioned a government attorney on Thursday over a Biden administration rule aimed at curbing the use of stabilizing braces, which are handgun attachments that have been used in multiple mass shootings in recent years."
It then goes downhill from there. Objective journalism is dead.
First time I've ever heard that claim. I know they were used in a couple of shootings, and I've heard the 2A opponents say that they COULD be used for mass shootings, but I've never heard them say that they have been used in MULTIPLE shootings. They must be referring to movies & TV...
Benton Quest
Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2010
- Messages
- 378
- Reaction score
- 626
The stabilizing brace allows you to shoot bigger bullets for more death power. Fact.
Or not.
Doesn't matter.
Sent from my SM-G990U using Tapatalk
Or not.
Doesn't matter.
Sent from my SM-G990U using Tapatalk
