SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    ATF proposing to ban/restrict pistol “braces.” Very short comment period: Please get involved.
Page 1 ... 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 40
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
ATF proposing to ban/restrict pistol “braces.” Very short comment period: Please get involved. Login/Join 
Member
posted Hide Post
Latest update from Washington Gun Law

Statewide relief for Texas.
 
Posts: 438 | Location: North of DFW | Registered: May 01, 2012Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Shall Not Be Infringed
Picture of nhracecraft
posted Hide Post


____________________________________________________________

If Some is Good, and More is Better.....then Too Much, is Just Enough !!
Trump 2024....Make America Great Again!
"May Almighty God bless the United States of America" - parabellum 7/26/20
Live Free or Die!
 
Posts: 9660 | Location: New Hampshire | Registered: October 29, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by TVzombie:
Latest update from Washington Gun Law

Statewide relief for Texas.
Read footnote 9 on page 7 of the order I posted previously. The part about the Court explicitly declining to extend injunctive relief up to the territorial borders of Texas.
 
Posts: 797 | Location: FL | Registered: July 30, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Oriental Redneck
Picture of 12131
posted Hide Post
I've been GOA Life for years.


Q






 
Posts: 28223 | Location: TEXAS | Registered: September 04, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
The video linked above discusses State of Texas/GOA vs. ATF.

The ruling posted on the previous page of the thread is Mock vs. Garland. (eta: wrong on my part, both cases are posted)

Different injunctions, right? After watching the video again, he seems rather loose regarding the whole state of Texas when it could be interpreted as the subset of state employees. The later being a more conservative interpretation. (eta: a click bait video it seems)

I need to review the actual court document referenced in the video. When I have time to find it. - found it, smh.

Thanks.
-TVz
 
Posts: 438 | Location: North of DFW | Registered: May 01, 2012Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by TVzombie:
The video linked above discusses State of Texas/GOA vs. ATF.

The ruling posted on the previous page of the thread is Mock vs. Garland. (eta: wrong on my part, both cases are posted)

Different injunctions, right? After watching the video again, he seems rather loose regarding the whole state of Texas when it could be interpreted as the subset of state employees. The later being a more conservative interpretation. (eta: a click bait video it seems)

I need to review the actual court document referenced in the video. When I have time to find it. - found it, smh.

Thanks.
-TVz
There is a lot of click bait type content floating around that should absolutely not be relied upon. That is why I posted the actual orders here for reference. If you are not closely related to the litigation, the practical odds of getting relief for violations of these orders are not great. The ancillary issue of whether ATF just decides to hold off on enforcement until the dust settles is an entirely separate question.

What I am saying in more concrete terms is, if ATF decides to ATF, folks should prepare for that potential reality with the understanding that these orders will not prevent enforcement action and potential prosecution.
 
Posts: 797 | Location: FL | Registered: July 30, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Told cops where to go for over 29 years…
Picture of 911Boss
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by gearhounds:

You can just leave it off and cheek weld with a short elastic sling if it becomes needed. Not ideal but surprisingly easy use for short range shooting.


So if enough people start cheek welding slings, in the future will having a sling attached make it a defacto SBR as they decided braces do?








What part of "...Shall not be infringed" don't you understand???


 
Posts: 11420 | Location: Western WA state for just a few more years... | Registered: February 17, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Frangas non Flectes
Picture of P220 Smudge
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by smschulz:
quote:
Originally posted by P220 Smudge:
Yes. As long as the barrel is 16" or more, you can have a brace on a gun. Under that, and it's an SBR/SBS.


Ummm......or so as the ATF has illegally alleged . Eek


Yes, well, we've covered that in the prior 34 pages and this is me trying to directly address Hildur's question.


______________________________________________
“There are plenty of good reasons for fighting, but no good reason ever to hate without reservation, to imagine that God Almighty Himself hates with you, too.”
 
Posts: 17887 | Location: Sonoran Desert | Registered: February 10, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Thank you
Very little
Picture of HRK
posted Hide Post
I posted that the SAF was a worthwhile organization for Gun owners, and it appears that in the Arm Brace case, it and it's members are part of the protected class, extending the relief to people outside of Texas if they are SAF members.


SAF MEMBERSHIP SURGES AFTER JUDGE CLARIFIES SCOPE OF ARM BRACE INJUNCTION


Following the clarification by a federal judge regarding the scope of a preliminary injunction in the Second Amendment Foundation’s case against the Biden administration’s new “arm brace rule” – that it applies to SAF members – interest in membership was so heavy during the first 24 hours it crashed the website.

U.S. District Judge Jane J. Boyle last week clarified her order granting, in part, SAF’s preliminary injunction in a case known as SAF, et.al. v. ATF, et. al. In that clarification, she wrote, “The Court confirms that its Preliminary Injunction Order applies to both the Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. and its members.”

SAF is joined in the case by Rainier Arms, LLC and two private citizens, Samuel Walley and William Green. They are represented by attorney Chad Flores at Flores Law in Houston, Texas.

“Interest in SAF membership has been simply stunning,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “In our 49 years of existence, we have never experienced such a spontaneous organic groundswell of public interest, from all over the country. Not only does this show the importance of fighting these legal battles on behalf of our members, and American gun owners in general, it also underscores the degree of public interest in the arm brace issue. We are both proud and humbled by the surge in memberships from people who see SAF as leading the charge against the ATF’s flip on pistol braces.”

“When Judge Boyle confirmed that our members are protected by the preliminary injunction,” noted SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut, “we were delighted, and obviously, so were the tens of thousands of people who quickly visited our website, causing it the overload. Luckily, that was a temporary problem, and we’re pushing ahead with the case.”

SAF offers several different tiers of memberships which are available here. Memberships can be for individuals, businesses and organizations. Annual membership is $15, a five-year membership is $50 and a life membership is $150. Membership is effective upon date of receipt.

For questions regarding membership, please contact info@saf.org.

www.saf.org
 
Posts: 24667 | Location: Gunshine State | Registered: November 07, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Thank you
Very little
Picture of HRK
posted Hide Post
SAF WELCOMES NRA MOTION TO JOIN IN ITS LAWSUIT v. ATF

The Second Amendment Foundation today said it welcomes the National Rifle Association’s request to join in a federal lawsuit filed by SAF and its associates in a challenge of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ new “arm brace rule.”

NRA announced the effort Wednesday on its website, explaining the move was to obtain injunctive relief for its members to stop the ATF from enforcing its new rule – which totally reversed the agency’s previous position that pistol braces did not convert pistols into short-barreled rifles, making them subject to regulation under the 1934 National Firearms Act. The case is known as SAF, et.al. v. ATF, et. al.

On May 31, U.S. District Judge Jane J. Boyle in the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, confirmed the scope of a preliminary injunction she had issued in the case applied not only to SAF, but its members as well. “The Court confirms that its Preliminary Injunction Order applies to both the Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. and its members.”

The NRA announcement confirmed the organization “is going to court to obtain preliminary, and ultimately permanent, injunctive relief restraining Defendants from enforcing the ‘Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached ‘Stabilizing Braces’ (the “Final Rule”) against law-abiding NRA members.”

“We welcome the NRA’s motion to join in our lawsuit,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “If their motion is granted—and we certainly have no objection—it will mean more American gun owners will enjoy the same protection SAF members were granted under Judge Boyle’s preliminary injunction order. It only makes sense NRA would want the same protection for its members.”

SAF is joined in the case by Rainier Arms, LLC and two private citizens, Samuel Walley and William Green. They are represented by attorney Chad Flores at Flores Law in Houston, Texas.

“We’re in this for the long haul, and we intend to win,” Gottlieb said. “SAF has become a recognized leader in Second Amendment litigation since our 2010 Supreme Court victory in McDonald v. City of Chicago. We’re serious in our intent to win back firearms freedom one lawsuit at a time.”

SAF offers several different tiers of memberships which are available at https://www.saf.org/join-saf/. Annual membership is $15, a five-year membership is $50 and a life membership is $150. Membership is effective upon date of receipt.

For questions regarding membership, please contact info@saf.org.
 
Posts: 24667 | Location: Gunshine State | Registered: November 07, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Left-Handed,
NOT Left-Winged!
posted Hide Post
I just joined the SAF. They are doing good. More than the NRA from my point of view.
 
Posts: 5039 | Location: Indiana | Registered: December 28, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
His Royal Hiney
Picture of Rey HRH
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by HRK:
SAF WELCOMES NRA MOTION TO JOIN IN ITS LAWSUIT v. ATF

The Second Amendment Foundation today said it welcomes the National Rifle Association’s request to join in a federal lawsuit filed by SAF and its associates in a challenge of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ new “arm brace rule.”

[


NRA leading from behind?



"It did not really matter what we expected from life, but rather what life expected from us. We needed to stop asking about the meaning of life, and instead to think of ourselves as those who were being questioned by life – daily and hourly. Our answer must consist not in talk and meditation, but in right action and in right conduct. Life ultimately means taking the responsibility to find the right answer to its problems and to fulfill the tasks which it constantly sets for each individual." Viktor Frankl, Man's Search for Meaning, 1946.
 
Posts: 20263 | Location: The Free State of Arizona - Ditat Deus | Registered: March 24, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Oriental Redneck
Picture of 12131
posted Hide Post
NRA: Me too! Me too!


Q






 
Posts: 28223 | Location: TEXAS | Registered: September 04, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Left-Handed,
NOT Left-Winged!
posted Hide Post
I think one of the big issues will a challenge to NFA itself and the constitutionality of the special treatment given to short barreled rifles and shotguns.

The Miller decision in the late 1930's is the only NFA related SCOTUS decision I am aware of, and it basically stated that the 2nd amendment protects arms suitable for militia use, and since SBR's and SBS's at the time had no military use, they could be regulated.

Today SBR's are standard issue in the military and national guard with the M4 at 14.5". SBS's are commonly used by police because they are easier to handle getting in and out of cars and moving around indoors.

I'm not sure how far each plaintiff wants to go on this. Just get the brace rule changed and force Congress to pass a law to regulate braces (if they so choose), or go all the way try to take down NFA.

I would venture a guess that the NRA just wants the brace rule turned over and no overreach into NFA itself because it's a "safer" strategy. They had a history of not litigating cases for fear of a "final" decision against 2A rights. Heller was 5-4 - had it gone the other way there would have been a Supreme Court precedent that individuals do not have a right to keep and bear arms and states may regulate as they choose. That would have been a disaster. It went our way but barely.

I think todays court is the most likely ever to support 2A rights so the time to go as far as we can is now. Before Clarence Thomas is too old and god forbid steps down or passes away. He's almost 75 now. Another leftist nominee from Biden or other democrat President will put us back at 5-4 with a squishy Chief Justice.
 
Posts: 5039 | Location: Indiana | Registered: December 28, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of arabiancowboy
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by HRK:
I posted that the SAF was a worthwhile organization for Gun owners, and it appears that in the Arm Brace case, it and it's members are part of the protected class, extending the relief to people outside of Texas if they are SAF members.


SAF MEMBERSHIP SURGES AFTER JUDGE CLARIFIES SCOPE OF ARM BRACE INJUNCTION


Following the clarification by a federal judge regarding the scope of a preliminary injunction in the Second Amendment Foundation’s case against the Biden administration’s new “arm brace rule” – that it applies to SAF members – interest in membership was so heavy during the first 24 hours it crashed the website.

U.S. District Judge Jane J. Boyle last week clarified her order granting, in part, SAF’s preliminary injunction in a case known as SAF, et.al. v. ATF, et. al. In that clarification, she wrote, “The Court confirms that its Preliminary Injunction Order applies to both the Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. and its members.”

SAF is joined in the case by Rainier Arms, LLC and two private citizens, Samuel Walley and William Green. They are represented by attorney Chad Flores at Flores Law in Houston, Texas.

“Interest in SAF membership has been simply stunning,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “In our 49 years of existence, we have never experienced such a spontaneous organic groundswell of public interest, from all over the country. Not only does this show the importance of fighting these legal battles on behalf of our members, and American gun owners in general, it also underscores the degree of public interest in the arm brace issue. We are both proud and humbled by the surge in memberships from people who see SAF as leading the charge against the ATF’s flip on pistol braces.”

“When Judge Boyle confirmed that our members are protected by the preliminary injunction,” noted SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut, “we were delighted, and obviously, so were the tens of thousands of people who quickly visited our website, causing it the overload. Luckily, that was a temporary problem, and we’re pushing ahead with the case.”

SAF offers several different tiers of memberships which are available here. Memberships can be for individuals, businesses and organizations. Annual membership is $15, a five-year membership is $50 and a life membership is $150. Membership is effective upon date of receipt.

For questions regarding membership, please contact info@saf.org.

www.saf.org


Just joined, thank you for posting.
 
Posts: 2478 | Registered: May 17, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Drill Here, Drill Now
Picture of tatortodd
posted Hide Post
I received this from the Texas State Rifle Assoc's PAC. I know it won't get past the Senate, but am happy that The House will bring this to the floor for vote (Link):
quote:
Take Action - Urge Congress to Overturn ATF’s Brace Rule

TSRAPAC is a state oriented political action committee which focuses on state issues however, the ATF rule regarding the pistol brace warrants us to inform our readers of what is happening in Washington, DC next week.

The U.S. House is expected to hold a vote next week on H.J.Res.44, legislation that would overturn the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives' (ATF) pistol brace rule. H.J.Res.44, sponsored by Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-GA) and Rep. Richard Hudson (R-NC), is a disapproval resolution under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) that would invalidate ATF’s brace rule and block the agency from reissuing the same rule in the future. The U.S. Senate may consider companion legislation sponsored by Senator John Kennedy (R-LA) shortly thereafter. Please contact your federal legislators today and encourage them to vote “YES” on the disapproval resolution.

ATF’s unlawful rule on stabilizing braces would subject virtually all firearms with attached stabilizing braces to the registration requirements of the National Firearms Act (NFA) – the deadline to register these previously-acquired firearms was Wednesday, May 31, 2023.

Beginning in 2012, when President Biden was serving as then-President Barack Obama’s vice president, the ATF had recognized that stabilizing braces serve a legitimate function, and the inclusion of a stabilizing brace on a pistol or other firearm does not automatically subject that firearm to the provisions of the NFA.
But now, President Biden’s ATF has reversed over a decade of agency guidance and rulings that the firearms industry and law-abiding American gun owners have relied on when designing or acquiring firearms. Stabilizing braces were designed to enable gun owners to operate certain firearms with one hand with more stability. The ATF’s new rule says, essentially, that using a stabilizing brace with a pistol turns the firearm into a short-barreled rifle and must now be regulated by the NFA — and now the millions of Americans who own a pistol and a stabilizing brace, regardless of style, caliber, or type of brace, must either dispose of, alter, or register their firearms. If they don’t comply, they will become felons and face 10 years in prison and large fines.

Again, please take action today by contacting your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators, and encourage them to vote “YES” on the disapproval resolution to overturn ATF’s arbitrary rule.

Thank You,

Dianna Greenwood



Ego is the anesthesia that deadens the pain of stupidity

DISCLAIMER: These are the author's own personal views and do not represent the views of the author's employer.
 
Posts: 23956 | Location: Northern Suburbs of Houston | Registered: November 14, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by tatortodd:
I received this from the Texas State Rifle Assoc's PAC. I know it won't get past the Senate, but am happy that The House will bring this to the floor for vote (Link):
quote:
Take Action - Urge Congress to Overturn ATF’s Brace Rule

TSRAPAC is a state oriented political action committee which focuses on state issues however, the ATF rule regarding the pistol brace warrants us to inform our readers of what is happening in Washington, DC next week.

The U.S. House is expected to hold a vote next week on H.J.Res.44, legislation that would overturn the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives' (ATF) pistol brace rule. H.J.Res.44, sponsored by Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-GA) and Rep. Richard Hudson (R-NC), is a disapproval resolution under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) that would invalidate ATF’s brace rule and block the agency from reissuing the same rule in the future. The U.S. Senate may consider companion legislation sponsored by Senator John Kennedy (R-LA) shortly thereafter. Please contact your federal legislators today and encourage them to vote “YES” on the disapproval resolution.

ATF’s unlawful rule on stabilizing braces would subject virtually all firearms with attached stabilizing braces to the registration requirements of the National Firearms Act (NFA) – the deadline to register these previously-acquired firearms was Wednesday, May 31, 2023.

Beginning in 2012, when President Biden was serving as then-President Barack Obama’s vice president, the ATF had recognized that stabilizing braces serve a legitimate function, and the inclusion of a stabilizing brace on a pistol or other firearm does not automatically subject that firearm to the provisions of the NFA.
But now, President Biden’s ATF has reversed over a decade of agency guidance and rulings that the firearms industry and law-abiding American gun owners have relied on when designing or acquiring firearms. Stabilizing braces were designed to enable gun owners to operate certain firearms with one hand with more stability. The ATF’s new rule says, essentially, that using a stabilizing brace with a pistol turns the firearm into a short-barreled rifle and must now be regulated by the NFA — and now the millions of Americans who own a pistol and a stabilizing brace, regardless of style, caliber, or type of brace, must either dispose of, alter, or register their firearms. If they don’t comply, they will become felons and face 10 years in prison and large fines.

Again, please take action today by contacting your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators, and encourage them to vote “YES” on the disapproval resolution to overturn ATF’s arbitrary rule.

Thank You,

Dianna Greenwood


I’m confused. Isn’t there a limited time window after the rule is enacted (60 days) for the Congress to disapprove it using the CRA? The rule was enacted on Jan 31. On that day, the ATF declared braced pistols as SBRs. The 120 days was just an amnesty in enforcing actual penalties. Hasn’t that window passed?

Also, it needs to pass both houses of Congress, and the President can still veto it, and it requires the normal 2/3 majority to override?
 
Posts: 3466 | Location: South FL | Registered: February 09, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Shall Not Be Infringed
Picture of nhracecraft
posted Hide Post
^^^Curious situation if that's the case. Let's say Congress passes a resolution (in the House AND Senate) re: disapproval of action by the Executive Branch in which it finds violation of the Congressional Review Act, and a Presidential Veto of such a resolution would apply? Is this actually legislation we're talking about here? In this case it wasn't a rogue .gov agency action, but rather it was action at the behest and approval of the Executive Branch! Actually it was action by a rogue ATF, but that's not the point here. How then would the Legislative Branch then be able to exercise it's authority of Congressional Review otherwise, the basis of which in this case is that the ATF usurped Congressional authority? Makes NO sense...


____________________________________________________________

If Some is Good, and More is Better.....then Too Much, is Just Enough !!
Trump 2024....Make America Great Again!
"May Almighty God bless the United States of America" - parabellum 7/26/20
Live Free or Die!
 
Posts: 9660 | Location: New Hampshire | Registered: October 29, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by nhracecraft:
^^^Curious situation if that's the case. Let's say Congress passes a resolution (in the House AND Senate) re: disapproval of action by the Executive Branch in which it finds violation of the Congressional Review Act, and a Presidential Veto of such a resolution would apply? Is this actually legislation we're talking about here? In this case it wasn't a rogue .gov agency action, but rather it was action at the behest and approval of the Executive Branch! Actually it was action by a rogue ATF, but that's not the point here. How then would the Legislative Branch then be able to exercise its authority of Congressional Review otherwise, the basis of which in this case is that the ATF usurped Congressional authority? Makes NO sense...


Actually, that’s covered specifically on Page 9 of this FAQ.

https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R43992.pdf

Under Presidential Veto/Defacto Supermajority Requirement.

I’m having trouble going through the legalease to figure out when the 60 day clock started, though.
 
Posts: 3466 | Location: South FL | Registered: February 09, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post


https://assets.nationbuilder.c...inion.pdf?1690919131


_________________________
"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it."
Mark Twain
 
Posts: 13479 | Registered: January 17, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 ... 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 40 
 

SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    ATF proposing to ban/restrict pistol “braces.” Very short comment period: Please get involved.

© SIGforum 2024