quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
The one that uses the bad photoshop of Biden with his hand out and the tiny AR is the worst offender.

Armed Scholar.

quote:

Originally posted by P220 Smudge:

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
The one that uses the bad photoshop of Biden with his hand out and the tiny AR is the worst offender.

Armed Scholar.

And that Guns and Gadgets dude!
Will not ever watch their videos. Always complete wastes of time.

I have yet to find a consistently solid Gun/Legal based YouTuber yet.
The Washington Law guy is decent but not something I really ever seek out to watch.

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:
Recently, there was a preliminary temporary injunction put in place in one particular suit out of Texas, with the Judge prohibiting the ATF from enforcing the new rule solely against the parties involved in that specific lawsuit, which includes a few individuals along with a brace manufacturer and the members of the Firearms Policy Coalition, a gun rights organization. But so far, those are the only ones shielded from enforcement.

Good summary, but to add clarity on "brace manufacturer" (i.e. Maxim Defense) it include their pistol brace customers.

quote:

Originally posted by Black92LX:

I have yet to find a consistently solid Gun/Legal based YouTuber yet.
The Washington Law guy is decent but not something I really ever seek out to watch.

Just to name a few good ones:

The Four Boxes Diner(2A issues in Federal courts)

Law of Self Defense (good expert on use of force if you catch Branca sober and not discussing random stuff on a Livestream)

The Civil Rights Lawyer(lots of good content here with an emphasis on WV criminal law)

Robert Gouveia (Lots of content from an AZ criminal defense lawyer)

Potentially Criminal (I think he's an Ohio criminal defense attorney who discusses a variety of issues including 2A stuff)

So if one joins FPC by the 31st you are included in the injunction?

quote:

Originally posted by Black92LX:
So if one joins FPC by the 31st you are included in the injunction?

Yes. And the GOA has filed for an injunction as well, they're waiting on a decision hopefully in the next few days.

I plan to join the FPC in the next couple of days on their website, $30, which is separate from a donation.

quote:

Originally posted by oddball:

quote:

Originally posted by Black92LX:
So if one joins FPC by the 31st you are included in the injunction?

Yes. And the GOA has filed for an injunction as well, they're waiting on a decision hopefully in the next few days.

I plan to join the FPC in the next couple of days on their website, $30, which is separate from a donation.

I joined

I'm no lawyer. But isn't there a 14th Amendment issue with a few people being exempt from a law (or gov't. action masquerading as lawful) the rest of us can face enforcement of?

quote:

Originally posted by Rick Lee:
I'm no lawyer. But isn't there a 14th Amendment issue with a few people being exempt from a law (or gov't. action masquerading as lawful) the rest of us can face enforcement of?

Preliminary injunctions are equitable remedies under Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The judge typically has some discretion as to how narrow or broad an injunction may be, or to whom it may apply (usually the parties).

No one is being exempted from the law, but it is more of an attempt to keep the status quo in cases where irreparable harm will result to a party if the Court doesn't act.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: HKAngusKL,

Mark Smith, The Four Boxes Diner is my go-to. He gets geeky and breaks it down so we laymen can understand.


Went ahead and joined FPC as well. Even though I don't have any of the products in question now, doesn't mean that something I do have won't come up later.

Sounds like doing nothing is the best policy at this point.

Here is a video that Mark Smith of The Four Boxes Diner put out earlier going over who might be covered by the injunction. I think everyone might want to watch this for a better understanding.

https://youtu.be/XrllNyNa8lU

GOA and the State of Texas Secure a Preliminary Injunction Against Biden’s Pistol Ban

https://www.gunowners.org/goa-...t-bidens-pistol-ban/

Last night, GOA successfully secured a preliminary injunction from a federal judge against Biden’s pistol ban that applies to all members of Gun Owners of America.

This is a serious setback to Joe Biden who was hell-bent on outlawing 40,000,000 firearms, thus turning millions of Americans into felons once the clock struck midnight last night.

Now that GOA, along with the state of Texas, has 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.

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.

✅ We led a campaign to comment publicly during the ATF’s second proposed pistol brace rule – and over 30% of all public comments received were from GOA members!

✅ We submitted FOIA requests to uncover ATF brace malfeasance to prepare for our lawsuit.

✅ We filed our lawsuit against Biden’s pistol ban and an amicus brief to help other lawsuits on appeal.

✅ We lobbied for H. J. Res. 44 to overturn Biden’s pistol ban.

✅ We delivered tens of thousands of emails into congressional offices to urge the passage of H.J. Res. 44.

✅ We also generated thousands of grassroots phone calls into targeted “swing district” offices on Capitol Hill to urge the passage of H. J. Res. 44.

✅ We produced three coalition letters representing influencers, the industry, and gun dealers — all demanding Speaker McCarthy use the Congressional Review Act to repeal the pistol ban.

✅ We have appeared on dozens of TV, radio and news outlets to warn Americans about the Biden gun ban and call them to action.

✅ We successfully secured a preliminary injunction against the ban for our members as our litigation makes its way through the courts.

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.

Erich, 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.

Cliff Notes: The numbers are in. Depending on which estimate you believe on the number of pistol braces there were between 0.6% and 8% of all braced pistols were registered via "free" tax stamp for SBRs.

The good news is that now there are millions less “assault weapons” and “unregistered SBR’s” in the US now… right? Theoretically they’re all just pistols now

What a clown show.

I’m one of the .6-8% only because I already have one SBR and am on “the radar” anyway. Ironically I’ll just keep the brace on it, in no hurry for a stock.

quote:

Originally posted by Strambo:
I’m one of the .6-8% only because I already have one SBR and am on “the radar” anyway. Ironically I’ll just keep the brace on it, in no hurry for a stock.

Yep, Me too. I already have a dozen SBR's and six cans so they know where I live. I did register my 4 braced rifles. I guess when they come for the guns we will be the first to know.

The more you guys comply, the more power you give them.

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:
The more you guys comply, the more power you give them.

Yup.

Disappointing.

Needless to say, the unconstitutional meddling and idiotic, clownish waffling by the ATF has thoroughly confused matters. A lot of people who have been forced into making a decision because of the anti-American buffoons at the ATF have a great deal at risk if they gauge the situation incorrectly. No one wants to be hassled by any federal agency, of course, but some people have more to lose; they have families depending upon them. It's easy for us to sit here and proclaim that the ATF cannot or will not enforce their arbitrary, illegal horse shit rules, but it comes down to weighing the risks and erring on the side of caution.

I happen to agree that no one should register anything in which the enforcing agency changes the Goddamn rules every time we turn around, but I do understand why those who chose to do so, did so.