Let the lawsuits begin!

[serger]

Here's the Federal Register link to ATFs' final rule on pistol braces.

Let the games begin:

Federal Register
::
Factoring Criteria for Firearms With Attached “Stabilizing Braces”

 

[BSA1]

So begins the greatest gun grab since 1968.

Next up is to pass a crime bill closing the pistol brace registry.

 

[ladder13]

Sent a check just yesterday to The SAF. They will use it wisely.

 

[LDM]

The problem is, in the year it takes these cases to work through the courts, the damage is already done. Is there in injunction against the ATF to not enforce these rules until the hearing?

 

[delcrossv]

The problem is, in the year it takes these cases to work through the courts, the damage is already done. Is there in injunction against the ATF to not enforce these rules until the hearing?

Usual practice is to file for a TRO. (Temporary Restraining Order)

 

[zeke]

Mock v. Garland - FPC Lawsuit Challenging the ATF's Pistol Brace Rule

Page down a little bit and find pdf of challenge. After breifly skimming the first part, may have found the reason for the ambiguous "factors". It appears if you change the final rule too much from the proposed rule, you need to start the public notice/comment period over again. I'm guessing here.

 

[scoobysnacker]

Usual practice is to file for a TRO. (Temporary Restraining Order)

The question I have, is whether the SBR fee waiver period would be paused or not.

There are plenty of people with SBRs, and quite a few have converted pistols to SBRs. Basically, you'd just swap the brace for a stock and add 'banned' grips and optics if you wanted to, once approved.
It's not a terrible option to consider (if not a trap, that is); and I'm mulling it over.

Ironically, one of the complaints I and some guys I know have about that- my pistol ARs are not upper-tier brands, and I wouldn't have been converting one of those if I had chosen an SBR from the get-go. I have PSA and other cheap lowers; as my buddy said, he'd have went with at least an Aero lower if he intended to invest in a SBR. And that's not even mentioning the uppers, as they are the infamous BCA (cheap, side-charging) ones.

But to the point I'm making- the ATF is offering the option to register as a SBR for free, beginning with this.

Is the delay of enforcement caused by an injunction going to force them to extend that offer too, or can they start the clock on that regardless?

 

[scoobysnacker]

duplicate post

 

[Borderboss]

The question I have, is whether the SBR fee waiver period would be paused or not.

There are plenty of people with SBRs, and quite a few have converted pistols to SBRs. Basically, you'd just swap the brace for a stock and add 'banned' grips and optics if you wanted to, once approved.
It's not a terrible option to consider (if not a trap, that is); and I'm mulling it over.

Ironically, one of the complaints I and some guys I know have about that- my pistol ARs are not upper-tier brands, and I wouldn't have been converting one of those if I had chosen an SBR from the get-go. I have PSA and other cheap lowers; as my buddy said, he'd have went with at least an Aero lower if he intended to invest in a SBR. And that's not even mentioning the uppers, as they are the infamous BCA (cheap, side-charging) ones.

But to the point I'm making- the ATF is offering the option to register as a SBR for free, beginning with this.

Is the delay of enforcement caused by an injunction going to force them to extend that offer too, or can they start the clock on that regardless?

Watch the Guns & Gadgets YouTube videos with the GOA lawyers. The "free registration period" is a trap. If you don't get approved within the 88 days that the ATF has to approve you, you get an automatic denial. Oh, but you've already admitted that you have what the ATF considers an unregistered SBR. So they start "an enforcement action" on you, meaning they come and confiscate it. That's the summary, but you should watch the videos for yourself.

 

[BB57]

Watch the Guns & Gadgets YouTube videos with the GOA lawyers. The "free registration period" is a trap. If you don't get approved within the 88 days that the ATF has to approve you, you get an automatic denial. Oh, but you've already admitted that you have what the ATF considers an unregistered SBR. So they start "an enforcement action" on you, meaning they come and confiscate it. That's the summary, but you should watch the videos for yourself.

Technically that’s possible. But historically they have not done it on Form 1 or Form 4 applications before, and the Form 4 applications have taken upwards of a year at some points in the not too distant past.

I don’t think that’s something they will do. However, ATF almost certainly knows the pistol brace rule will fare about as well as the bump stock ban, but the damage will be done before it’s over turned.

For example for persons living in a state that doesn’t allow pistol braces it’s the same as a ban and effectively requires the braces to be destroyed.

For everyone else if they are forced to register it as an SBR, it would be a whole new court challenge to get them to allow un registration of them of/when the rule change is struck down.

I expected a temporary injunction until the legal challenges with the bump stock issue were sorted but it doesn’t happen, in large part because there were not all that many people affected

With any where from 3 million to 20 million pistols braces there should be more reason to issue a retaining order given the large number of affected people. However, on the other hand I’m not sure judges are as likely to see the more subtle harms imposed by the rule change and the harms that it creates. For example, they may see registration as not that big a deal, and or may not see how the change in classification ultimately and negatively impacts their ability to be used for self defense purposes.

Consequently having the rule changed stayed in some manner until it’s legality is settled isn’t guaranteed.

 

[bushmaster1313]

I do not expect to ever want or possess any AR15 pistol with or without an arm brace. So I do not have a dog in this fight. But I do have two observations.

1) My Dad taught me almost 60 years ago that if something is against the law doing the same thing a different way is still wrong. Therefore, if an arm brace on an AR15 pistol is a way of having a short barreled rifle by a different name — anyone doing so proceeds at their own risk.

2) Although I am not in a position to give a reasoned legal opinion, it would seem to me that if the BATFE is changing its interpretation of a law such that something which was legal is now illegal — that law is a fine example of a law being void for vagueness.

 

[scoobysnacker]

I do not expect to ever want or possess any AR15 pistol with or without an arm brace. So I do not have a dog in this fight. But I do have two observations.

1) My Dad taught me almost 60 years ago that if something is against the law doing the same thing a different way is still wrong. Therefore, if an arm brace on an AR15 pistol is a way of having a short barreled rifle by a different name — anyone doing so proceeds at their own risk.

That's going to be the basis of the ATF's case, and I agree with you there. People are shouldering these, for practical purposes as much as anything else. It's too heavy and awkward a device for anyone smaller than Conan to use effectively just holding it out in space, and even he would benefit from shouldering.

2) Although I am not in a position to give a reasoned legal opinion, it would seem to me that if the BATFE is changing its interpretation of a law such that something which was legal is now illegal — that law is a fine example of a law being void for vagueness.

That's going to get interesting, and one thing I would bring up is the Shockwave and Tac 14 firearms.
I would say "shotguns", but in technicality they're not. Not without a stock.

Yet, there are brace devices that people can place on them, that extend from the rear (like an AK or Scorpion, and unlike an AR where there's the buffer tube *a physical part of the gun design*). Those are not being named or included in this, because they're specifying "short barreled RIFLE". And the Shockwave would be, I suppose, a "short barreled shotgun".
But, the ATF is attempting to define a legally purchased firearm as an NFA item, because of the attached brace.

As of now, there is no ruling preventing the Shockwave from using a brace... why would a Scorpion or Krinkov be different? Simply because it's different ammo? You can't tell me a .223 or 7.62x39 at close range is more lethal than a 12 gauge with slugs or 00 buckshot.
It's at least an angle I would present, to show how arbitrary and vague this is.

 

[Borderboss]

Technically that’s possible. But historically they have not done it on Form 1 or Form 4 applications before, and the Form 4 applications have taken upwards of a year at some points in the not too distant past.

I think you're not considering a fundamental difference. Generally people wait for the form 1/form 4 approvals before they do the build. In the current situation, you're admitting to the ATF that you've technically already done the build and now want to register it. That's why they'll go after people.

 

[Oldengineer]

This feels like expo facto law. You can’t pass a law today that effects yesterday. Just an uneducated opinion.