OK, so, is that it? Or will the ATF continue their efforts with this nonsense?

Nope, I seriously doubt it...That would be too easy, so that's definitely not it, and the ATF will likely continue this nonsense without shame!

Though it would appear to be a slam dunk case in favor of Gun Owners, I'd expect the ATF and Merrick Garland to request a En Banc Hearing before the entire Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals anyway. And when the lose there, they'll likely appeal to the US Supreme Court. I'd probably bet money on it!

Not sure what this means, but I assume they are sending it back to a district court to determine if a preliminary injunction is warranted.

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


The present case is also not the only one involving a challenge to the Final Rule. Multiple judges within this circuit have already issued injunctions against the Final Rule, following the initial one issued here, enjoining enforcement against members of various gun rights organizations.

62 It is already uncertain how many persons are now subject to these injunctions or how the ATF would enforce the Final Rule against non-enjoined parties.

There is a need for consistent application of the law, and this court may not have all the required facts. Accordingly, the district court is better situated to weigh the facts and fashion the most appropriate relief.
* * * * *
For the foregoing reasons, we REVERSE the order denying a preliminary injunction and REMAND with instruction to consider that motion
expeditiously.

To ensure relative stability, we MAINTAIN the preliminary injunction pending appeal that the motions panel issued on May 23, 2023, as
clarified by this merits panel on May 26, 2023.63 This court’s injunction will expire 60 days from the date of this decision, or once the district court rules on a preliminary injunction, whichever occurs first. We direct the district court to rule within 60 days.

We place no limitation on the matters that the conscientious district court may address on remand, and we give no indication of what decisions it should reach, regarding a preliminary injunction or any other matter.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: wcb6092,

A party requesting a preliminary injunction has to prove four things to win. The appellate court opinion issued today holds that the challengers proved one of those four things, and it sends the case back to the trial court to decide the other three. The trial court has 60 days to rule.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
OK, so, is that it? Or will the ATF continue their efforts with this nonsense?

Of course they will.
More waiting.

Our leftist inspired democRAT “leadership” spits on the Constitution daily; ignoring this is par for the course.

Hey, chin up, Little Buckaroos, we just won this skirmish in the battle in the war to save our Bill of Rights.

Let us rejoice and be glad in it.

Another good summary of current events:

quote:

Originally posted by BigSwede:
Eat dicks

FATF

What he said

Not quite finished, but we're headed in the right direction!






Tony.

^^^ Tony, are these "HUGE NEWS" and "Breaking" stories really new, like within the last couple days or so? Or, are they just click bait recycled stuff from a couple of months ago? Because I can't seem to find anything really new regarding pistol brace ruling.

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
^^^ Tony, are these "HUGE NEWS" and "Breaking" stories really new, like within the last couple days or so? Or, are they just click bait recycled stuff from a couple of months ago? Because I can't seem to find anything really new regarding pistol brace ruling.

Yes, both posted today with results of the amounts of people that registered their pistols as SBR's. Only 8% of estimated owners of braces applied to have their pistols registered as SBR's.

Judge brought up "common usage" and stocks in certain contexts that benefit our cause.

Tony.

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
^^^ Tony, are these "HUGE NEWS" and "Breaking" stories really new, like within the last couple days or so? Or, are they just click bait recycled stuff from a couple of months ago? Because I can't seem to find anything really new regarding pistol brace ruling.

After the appellate court reversed the trial court’s order denying to enter a preliminary injunction the case was sent back to the trial court. The trial court decided to enter an injunction prohibiting the government from enforcing its pistol brace rule against any of the defendants.

The case isn’t over but two things are worth noting. First, the rule was declared invalid for procedural reasons based on how it was adopted. The government could start over and try again. Second, the trial court all but ruled that pistol braces are protected by the second amendment because they are simply a device used to make an undoubtedly protected weapon (a pistol) more accurate and therefore safer. It’s just a trial court ruling, and a preliminary one at that, but it’s encouraging to read nonetheless.

Does anyone know if the injunction is nationwide or limited to the fifth circuit’s geographic area?

^^^
I may be wrong but it seems to be applicable to the fifth circuit for now.

https://www.ammoland.com/2023/...-rule/#axzz8FNm9gs1E

Nope...

The injunction enjoined the ATF from taking regulatory action against the named plaintiffs in the case (Mock, Lewis, and their families), the FPC (Firearms Policy Coalition) and all of it's members, and Maxim Defense and it's customers only. The current injunction is a Full Preliminary Injunction, so NOT time limited, where the previous prelim-Injunction was only valid for 60 days.

It will likely apply to the GOA (Gun Owners of America) and it's members, and the SAF (Second Amendment Foundation) and it's members as a result of pending filings in the Fifth Circuit by those organizations. Those orgs currently had a prelim-Injunction granted to them, but 'should' get a similar Full Preliminary Injunction based on the ruling by Judge O'Connor.

There is a pending case in the Fifth Circuit to extend the Injunction Nationwide, but there's not been a decision on that yet.

Thorough analysis of the ruling by Judge O'Connor here:

So it appears that the pistol brace ban injunction is effective NATIONWIDE now!

Link to ruling...
https://will-law.org/wp-conten.../11/177116400067.pdf



Tony.

Ok, I scanned through the actual ruling quickly, and maybe I missed it, but I did not see anywhere it mentioned the ruling applied nationwide. It just says "the Court...STAYS the Rule in its entirety". It would be great, if it truly does nationwide, but...

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:


Ok, I scanned through the actual ruling quickly, and maybe I missed it, but I did not see anywhere it mentioned the ruling applied nationwide. It just says "the Court...STAYS the Rule in its entirety". It would be great, if it truly does nationwide, but...

Skip to the 12:45 to 13:00 minute mark on the video I posted. It talks about "entirety" there.

Tony.