AlwaysArmed
Member
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2015
- Messages
- 192
- Reaction score
- 203
[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHmspVYhM4Y[/ame]
JUST IN! Nation WIDE injunction on the Pistol Brace Rule!
- Thread starter AlwaysArmed
- Start date
- Status
Register to hide this ad
YEAH. One for the good guys. (Not that I own or expect to own one, but if I want to I should be able to. The BATF are SUPPOSED to follow the rules just like I am supposed to follow the rules.)
BrovoEchoSierra
Member
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2021
- Messages
- 142
- Reaction score
- 220
It does not effect me at all as I dont own one, and probably never will.
However its a win for all of us, to know that an enforcement agency can't create policy, only enforce what has been created by the legislative branch of government. The checks an balances are intended this way, and the ATF needs to abide by this..
However its a win for all of us, to know that an enforcement agency can't create policy, only enforce what has been created by the legislative branch of government. The checks an balances are intended this way, and the ATF needs to abide by this..
already watched the video, and what makes me smile is the ATF will appeal, to the 5th Circuit, and there is no way they will reverse themselves. They already granted an injunction for Mock v Garland, the other brace lawsuit.
I don't have a dog in this fight either, except for the concept of alphabet agencies adhering to laws passed by congress and that pesky constitution. With that said, I'm glad that the courts are finally reigning in these agencies.
……HOORAY!…..
NFrameFred
Member
Would that this could be the final word; but politics corrupts the judiciary against the concept of 'blind justice'. The integrity of the bench is obviously not what it should be, we have too many examples (do your own research) that make it obvious particularly when it comes to gun laws. Common sense and the ability to read seems lacking in many of these cases and one can only surmise that when they don't agree politically with decisions based on the Constitution, intricate contortions and warped logic spawn decisions that will obviously be overturned - but they don't care. Stall tactics and propaganda campaigns seek to convince that it's really midnight at noon. "Believe what we tell you - not your lying eyes - that's the moon, not the sun!"
No doubt this will not be the end of this issue, but hopefully will force the agencies to slow down trying to legislate by regulation instead of vice versa. As noted in other places here lately, "elections have consequences". That's where this issue will be won or lost. Without a doubt legislation from both sides will be proffered. Meanwhile, the Feds now have lists of serial numbers of those that registered their not (now) SBRs that will make it much easier to keep tabs without the extra effort of research and sifting data. A nothing burger to some, but . . .
No doubt this will not be the end of this issue, but hopefully will force the agencies to slow down trying to legislate by regulation instead of vice versa. As noted in other places here lately, "elections have consequences". That's where this issue will be won or lost. Without a doubt legislation from both sides will be proffered. Meanwhile, the Feds now have lists of serial numbers of those that registered their not (now) SBRs that will make it much easier to keep tabs without the extra effort of research and sifting data. A nothing burger to some, but . . .
Last edited:
where they screwed up Fred, is there is now incontrovertible proof that there are at least half a million braced pistols owned by lawful citizens for lawful purposes. That just guaranteed they can't be banned based on SCOTUS rulings.
Anyone read about this thing called prohibition? A constitutional amendment to ban the sale and possession of alcoholic beverages. Alcohol was perfectly legal before 1920, yet congress banned it from 1920 to 1933, so don't delude yourselves into thinking that lawful possession by millions today prevents a prohibition tomorrow. Would it be a mistake for the government to do such a thing? Yes, but humans have a habit of forgetting history and its mistakes and end up repeating the mistakes.
Judge Reed O'Connor is one member of the Federal judiciary who does not tolerate anyone putting their finger on the scale of justice!!! Good for him!!! And, good for America!!! Sincerely. bruce.
But in common use was not the only reason for setting it aside. The changes to the final rule from the preliminary one seem to be the other reason. "logical outgrowth"
CAJUNLAWYER
Member
I do not know if this is a nationwide injunction or just in the Fifth Circuit. No big deal, I'm in the Fifth Circuit
Pisgah
Member
Congress AND OVER 2/3 OF STATE LEGISLATURES passed a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting alcohol, the 18th. Completely different process. Let's remember that part of it, and not oversimplify...
The bigger fear is, this will just delay the settling the matter. If it is simply procedural, the ATF will just retry again and we'll have to go through this whole issue again.
Nice to shoot it down, but also not good that the whole thing isn't just going to be potentially scuttled and over.
LoadedRound
Member
I don't think it really starts all over.
As I understand this:
The 5th circuit court of appeals sent this down to the Federal Northern District of Texas. In the District Court, Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk stayed the rule in it's entirety. Previous to sending the case to the district court, the 5th Circuit had issued a limited stay based on multiple points.
If the ATF doesn't appeal Judge Kacsmaryk's ruling, the rule is stayed. If the ATF does appeal, it will go back to the 5th Circuit. If they don't uphold Judge Kacsmaryk's ruling, they would be effectively reversing their own opinion.
If they uphold the lower court's ruling, the ATF would have to appeal to the Supreme Court. If they uphold or refuse to hear it, the rule is stayed.
I'm not an attorney. If anyone can help me better understand, please jump in.
As I understand this:
The 5th circuit court of appeals sent this down to the Federal Northern District of Texas. In the District Court, Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk stayed the rule in it's entirety. Previous to sending the case to the district court, the 5th Circuit had issued a limited stay based on multiple points.
If the ATF doesn't appeal Judge Kacsmaryk's ruling, the rule is stayed. If the ATF does appeal, it will go back to the 5th Circuit. If they don't uphold Judge Kacsmaryk's ruling, they would be effectively reversing their own opinion.
If they uphold the lower court's ruling, the ATF would have to appeal to the Supreme Court. If they uphold or refuse to hear it, the rule is stayed.
I'm not an attorney. If anyone can help me better understand, please jump in.
More like millions. Where they originally screwed up is when they said they were legal…several times. Tough to change boats midstream.
Makes me wonder where that leaves the ones who got a stamp under the new rule? Say you had a braced pistol, then got the stamp and put a stock on the pistol to make it a sbr. Then there is a temporary injunction against the rule. Now the rule has been suspended, would the stock need to be replaced by the original brace?
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2012
- Messages
- 3,349
- Reaction score
- 5,579
I was curious about this too.
If you have the brace on, it's a legal pistol. What do you do with the tax stamp? I guess you could put a solid stock on it.
At any rate, mission accomplished. They have a few of them registered, anyway.
If you registered it as an SBR, you can put a real stock on it. Doing that means it's no longer a pistol, can't be carried with a CPL and you can't take it across State lines without ATF approval.
Since the ATF ruling is stayed, brace equipped pistols are no longer considered an NFA item (for now).
I know you can make an AR pistol into a rifle, but read you can't make a AR rifle into a pistol, unless you stamp it.
From ATF's website.
"Can I lawfully make a rifle into a pistol without registering that firearm?
No. A firearm that was originally a rifle would be classified as a "weapon made from a rifle" if it has either a barrel less than 16 inches in length or an overall length of less than 26 inches. If an individual wishes to make an NFA firearm, they must first submit ATF Form 1 (Application to Make and Register a Firearm), pay a $200.00 making tax, and receive approval of the application from ATF before converting the firearm.
[18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3); 26 U.S.C. § 5845(a)(3)-(4)]"
I had 2 SBR AR's before all this happened, I also had a braced 7" AR that I did the no tax stamp on. I wanted to keep it as a pistol for road trips...truck gun.
I guess I'd have to buy another AR pistol lower if the brace law goes out.
Still have my brace.
This happens when people build a Ruger 10/22 a lot. The Charger receiver is exactly the same as the carbine receiver, just stamped differently. The pistol receiver can be made into anything, the carbine receiver must be a rifle. Technically, there are also a "Rifle" stamped receiver and then the takedown receivers as well. But you get the point.
OP
AlwaysArmed
Member
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2015
- Messages
- 192
- Reaction score
- 203
Once a rifle, always a rifle.
nicky4968
Member
3/4 of the states amended the constitution for prohibition.
Only 2 to contend with here. On an AR pistol, the brace is in some ways irrelevant since there is still the buffer tube protruding out the back end which can be used for a cheek weld.
On the MP5 pistol however, there is only an end cap, so nothing to cheek weld to. In this instance, the brace is a nice addition so that the cheek weld can happen. No need to shoulder, but also shouldn't be a felony to move it 6" from cheek to shoulder...
On the MP5 pistol however, there is only an end cap, so nothing to cheek weld to. In this instance, the brace is a nice addition so that the cheek weld can happen. No need to shoulder, but also shouldn't be a felony to move it 6" from cheek to shoulder...
BKLooney
Member
Bunch of guys out at the lake with fishing poles trying to find where theirs fell outta the boat.. 
- Status
Similar threads
