AFT pistol stabilizing brace rule just came down.
- Thread starter AlwaysArmed
- Start date
Texas gets a partial temporary. But only applies to specific people.
Federal judge in Texas blocks Biden ATF pistol brace rule on day of deadline to register weapons | Fox News
Federal judge in Texas blocks Biden ATF pistol brace rule on day of deadline to register weapons | Fox News
Did You Misunderstand?
Take any rifle stock in your collection and attach a sticker to it that says "pistol brace". Did you just turn your rifle into a pistol?
Take any rifle stock in your collection and attach a sticker to it that says "pistol brace". Did you just turn your rifle into a pistol?
Looks like the GOA won the same kind of injunction as the FPC. Here's the text of an email I just received from GOA today...
So I'm guessing that their membership and funding is going to get a big boost too - just like the FPC. That can't be a bad thing.{NAME},
When Congress refused to stop the ATF from turning millions of Americans into felons overnight by unilaterally outlawing 40,000,000 firearms, GOA stepped in to defend your God-given rights.
Last night, we successfully secured a preliminary injunction from a federal judge against Biden’s pistol ban that applies to all members of Gun Owners of America.
Now that we’ve secured this injunction, we can argue our lawsuit on the merits and ask the court to completely STRIKE DOWN this egregious government overreach.
But the Biden-Harris Administration is committed to winning this case, and they’ve made sure their anti-gun ATF cronies have all the funds they need at their disposal.
Meanwhile, our legal expenses are already mounting – and we’re anticipating tens of thousands of dollars in additional legal costs as we continue the fight to defeat the ATF in court.
That’s why we’re asking grassroots pro-gun activists like YOU to help us muster the funds we need to win this case and OVERTURN Biden’s pistol ban for good.
Please make a contribution to our Legal Defense Fund to support our continued legal battle against the ATF as we seek to OVERTURN Biden’s pistol ban.
I want to make one thing perfectly clear.
Gun Owners of America fought to secure a preliminary injunction for ALL gun owners, not just our members.
The court only granted an injunction for our members – and while we’re grateful that our members are protected from prosecution under this court order, we did ask for more.
We always have been – and always will be – fighting to defend the freedom of EVERYONE.
In fact, GOA has fought this tyrannical pistol ban in every way imaginable since its inception, both on Capitol Hill and in the courts:
We successfully lobbied for the withdrawal of ATF’s first pistol brace rule under President Donald Trump.
CONTRIBUTE TO OUR LEGAL DEFENSE FUND
The implications of our lawsuit against the ATF extend far beyond pistol-braces.
A decision in favor of the ATF would effectively grant the ATF the ability to bypass Congress to implement new gun control whenever they please.
It wouldn’t be long before they moved to ban so-called “assault rifles” and other common firearms owned by millions of law-abiding Americans.
If unelected bureaucrats can grant themselves the power to unilaterally ban millions of firearms and deem U.S. citizens felons, America will cease to be a free country.
With Congress so-far refusing to act, our lawsuit against the ATF is a fantastic stop-gap effort to halt this tyranny in its tracks.
Robert, as we argue our case in the coming weeks, I want to ensure that our legal team has every dollar we need to beat the Biden-Harris Administration and the ATF in court.
With the fate of your Second Amendment rights truly hanging in the balance, now is not the time to cut corners or spare any expense.
That’s why GOA urgently needs your support in this battle to defend your liberty from anti-gunners who are hellbent on the complete and total destruction of the Second Amendment.
So please, make a contribution to our Legal Defense Fund to support our continued legal battle against the ATF as we seek to OVERTURN Biden’s pistol ban.
In Liberty,
Erich Pratt
Senior Vice President
Gun Owners of America
Nope. Because applying a sticker is not "redesigning" the stock - just like putting the pistol brace against your shoulder isn't "redesigning" the brace.
In both cases the physical design characteristics of the item is unchanged.
It never ceases to amaze me how many supposedly pro-gun people are defending these un-Constitutional power grabs and infringements by the un-elected bureaucrats at the ATF. They seem to think, that because it doesn't affect them or any guns they own, it is OK.
I suppose those people will change their tune when these kinds of precedents lead to the ATF infringing on something that they do care about.
Last edited:
Grayfox
US Veteran
I got an e-mail from Gun Owners of America today. they got a federal judge to issue a preliminary injunction. Now all GOA members are protected as well. 
Love the GOA, got that today also.
This ain't nearly over
That's a whole nuthuh smoke, as we say.....
The problem with these cases is that the injunctions are only geared towards the specific plaintiffs. The injunction does not affect you, and you, and you, etc., unless you are a GOA member or whatever narrowly defined group the Courts identified.
So it is only semi-useful for most of the millions of shooters who own semi-auto rifles with braces attached.
Another thing that really irritates me is the use of the term "Biden pistol ban" in this context. The Feds might want to go after all magazine fed handguns and rifles but that is not the subject of these "brace" lawsuits. There is no "pistol ban" involved. That's just inflammatory language and inappropriate.
I think that I mentioned this before but this pistol brace case and the bump stock case will likely both be decided by the Courts using Chevron deference as opposed to the Second Amendment but maybe both; we shall see.
Feel free to look it up:
Chevron deference | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
(c) LII
That's a whole nuthuh smoke, as we say.....
The problem with these cases is that the injunctions are only geared towards the specific plaintiffs. The injunction does not affect you, and you, and you, etc., unless you are a GOA member or whatever narrowly defined group the Courts identified.
So it is only semi-useful for most of the millions of shooters who own semi-auto rifles with braces attached.
Another thing that really irritates me is the use of the term "Biden pistol ban" in this context. The Feds might want to go after all magazine fed handguns and rifles but that is not the subject of these "brace" lawsuits. There is no "pistol ban" involved. That's just inflammatory language and inappropriate.
I think that I mentioned this before but this pistol brace case and the bump stock case will likely both be decided by the Courts using Chevron deference as opposed to the Second Amendment but maybe both; we shall see.
Feel free to look it up:
Chevron deference | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
(c) LII
Yes. There are 3 lawsuits. FPC/Maxim Defense, GOA, and FRAC. FRAC is the big one representing 20ish states and all their citizens. So far FPC and GOA have preliminary injunctions. I was hoping for a last minute FRAC injunction. So far nothing.I got an e-mail from Gun Owners of America today. they got a federal judge to issue a preliminary injunction. Now all GOA members are protected as well.
Some details on the newest injunction, GOA [ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSc_ZjUL6BM[/ame]
Last edited:
Rodan
Member
Once again, 'Chevron Deference' does not apply when criminal penalties are involved.
The proper legal reasoning would be under the 'Rule of Lenity'.
rule of lenity | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
And under the 14th Amendment, you can't make one class of people immune from criminal prosecution for a particular law, so the injunctions have the effect of making the rule unenforceable until the cases are decided.
Maybe so, maybe not. There is no defendant involved. Nobody has been arrested so it seems to me that it still remains a matter of interpretation, which brings us back to Chevron.
Now that I can agree with.
I thought that I would cross post this here....
I hope the moderators don't ding me but it seems completely relevant to this discussion with respect to the ATF and Form 4473 and someone here might want to comment there.
http://smith-wessonforum.com/2nd-am...er-potential-2a-4473-issue.html#post141751619
I hope the moderators don't ding me but it seems completely relevant to this discussion with respect to the ATF and Form 4473 and someone here might want to comment there.
http://smith-wessonforum.com/2nd-am...er-potential-2a-4473-issue.html#post141751619
Last edited:
OP
AlwaysArmed
Member
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2015
- Messages
- 192
- Reaction score
- 203
If you're not subscribed to these two channels, you should be.
AA
[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=649ftBCtcyU[/ame]
[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAFXOnxxl5Q[/ame]
AA
[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=649ftBCtcyU[/ame]
[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAFXOnxxl5Q[/ame]
I didn't see anyone defending the unconstitutional power grabs you are talking about. Now you are imagining what people are thinking. I can certainly see that my sticker comment was way over your head.
The actual unconstitutional power grabs include the passing of the FFA in 1938 and the GCA of 1968, etc, and all the infringements in every state like New Jersey and Maryland etc. I can't understand people who don't care about striking down these laws as long as you get to keep your short-barreled rifles by calling them pistols.
Never mind, I can see this kind of reasoning might go right past you.
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2012
- Messages
- 4,550
- Reaction score
- 7,715
The IRS waives taxes all the time when settling tax disputes. The Legislative branch can pass a law that designates an Administrative branch to waive taxes at their discretion, ergo the Legislative branch approved it.
Waiving NFA item tax stamp taxes are a bit different. I've never heard of such a thing.
Paul in Nevada
Member
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2021
- Messages
- 870
- Reaction score
- 1,019
I think historians of the future, if there are any; will refer to our time as the "Post Constitutional Era", or perhaps, the "Post Republic era". They may debate when it started, but i think they will agree that at a certain point we were ruled by a fascistic partnership between plutocrats and the Administrative State.
Yeah, well, that would be because you are new around here. Having been on this and other forums for years, I've seen plenty of folks on this and other forums defending the bump stock ban, and this latest pistol brace "rule" or ban or whatever they want to call it.
Maybe I misunderstood your comment about the sticker - though your comment about "calling SBRs pistols" would seem to indicate otherwise.
One thing we can agree on: the FFA of 1934 and the GCA of 1968 should both be overturned on the grounds that they are un-Constitutional infringements on the 2nd Amendment. The same goes for the NFA of 1986, and just about every other Federal or State gun control law that has been enacted since.
The pistol brace and bump stock ATF rulings are just the LATEST infringements that we need to oppose. The other earlier ones have been entrenched in law for decades, so they are going to take more time and effort to get overturned. Plus, they were at least laws passed by Congress.
The issue we are dealing with right now is that the ATF is basically reinterpreting the law in a way that criminalizes MILLIONS of people, without Congressional action or authority.
That amounts to the Executive branch usurping the authority of the Legislative branch to create new laws - and then penalizing us on that basis. THAT is un-Constitutional and violates the principles of checks and balances that are enshrined in our system of government.
Get it? Or did that part go over your head?
Last edited:
Rodan
Member
That's why I mentioned the 14th Amendment and 'equal protection under the law' above.
Then again, some are more 'equal' than others...
Then again, some are more 'equal' than others...
cmj8591
Member
Maybe I'm missing something but how can a court issue an injunction that keeps the Government from enforcing a law and it only applies to people who have a paid membership in an organization? Wouldn't the injunction apply to ALL citizens?
