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 ... 36 37 38 39 40 
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
ATF proposing to ban/restrict pistol “braces.” Very short comment period: Please get involved. Login/Join 
For real?
Picture of Chowser
posted Hide Post
Guess it depends on where it was in the queue?
Or who your examiner was?


My individual from May was denied because I forgot to sign it. I was notified in September and given an address to mail the signed form to. It was approved on 11/6 and I just got it in the mail last week

Same examiner approved my February one that was on a trust. I and my brother also forgot to sign on the responsible parties section and he let me sign and upload those. The individual one he had me mail in.



Not minority enough!
 
Posts: 8219 | Location: Cleveland, OH | Registered: August 09, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Loves His Wife
Picture of BRL
posted Hide Post
I just catching wind of this being struck down now. I can now stop wringing my hands and gnashing my teeth about whether I should SBR my pending 8” 300 build with a can or just have a pistol buffer tube. Still a little bitter that I’ll have to get a permission letter to transport it across state lines with a can on it, especially on an annual basis the way I like to procrastinate. I was lucky and got the free stamp from Primary Arms with my Resonator R2.

For me the state lines issue is real. I life in WI just across the border from the Twin Cities where we spend 95% of our time.



I am not BIPOLAR. I don't even like bears.


 
Posts: 12972 | Location: Western WI | Registered: January 05, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Alienator
Picture of SIG4EVA
posted Hide Post
I'm glad I did nothing. Shall not be infringed and all.


SIG556 Classic
P220 Carry SAS Gen 2 SAO
SP2022 9mm German Triple Serial
P938 SAS
P365 FDE

Psalm 118:24 "This is the day which the Lord hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it"
 
Posts: 7189 | Location: NC | Registered: March 16, 2012Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Told cops where to go for over 29 years…
Picture of 911Boss
posted Hide Post
Don’t ask don’t tell

My AR refuses to be barrel shamed and identifies as long barrel

It’s chosen pronoun is ”Rifle”

While it may look like a brace, it is just a “plus sized” pistol grip that has a little junk in the trunk.






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


 
Posts: 11366 | Location: Western WA state for just a few more years... | Registered: February 17, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Still finding my way
Picture of Ryanp225
posted Hide Post
I'm just curious.
Has anyone every had anyone come and inspect their gun for legality?
I have never experienced such a thing nor has ANYONE I know or shoot with.
And yeah, "shall not be infringed" so anyone who asks will be instructed to FO.
 
Posts: 10851 | Registered: January 04, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Down the Rabbit Hole
Picture of Jupiter
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Ryanp225:
I'm just curious.
Has anyone every had anyone come and inspect their gun for legality?
I have never experienced such a thing nor has ANYONE I know or shoot with.
And yeah, "shall not be infringed" so anyone who asks will be instructed to FO.


I was in my early 20's (1982) when I purchased a Class 3 machine gun. I was told to expect surprise visits from the ATF. I've never had the ATF come inspect anything.


Diligentia, Vis, Celeritas

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
-- George Orwell

 
Posts: 4922 | Location: North Mississippi | Registered: August 09, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Rick Lee
posted Hide Post
I didn't think ATF could not (edit) show up and inspect NFA items unless you're a dealer. I mean, they can certainly ask. But unless you're a dealer, I thought you can tell them to pound sand. No?
 
Posts: 3768 | Location: Cave Creek, AZ | Registered: October 24, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Still finding my way
Picture of Ryanp225
posted Hide Post
And they CERTAINLY are not going door to door to verify that the stripped lower you bough 12 years ago has the correct bbl length and correct buffer tube accessories.
I guess this whole shit show just showed us who will be willing to get into the box cars when that time comes.
 
Posts: 10851 | Registered: January 04, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Blume9mm
posted Hide Post
For what it's worth this is how I understand some of the BATFE works...

in 2011 I applied for a tax stamp for a suppressor and was denied... the FBI does this .... I sent the ATF inspector the paper work showing the conviction I had in 1978 is now a misdemeanor .... was denied again and so the ATF inspector sent my appeal to the legal appeals department of the BATFE... seems they legally have to have an appeals department.... there is some law to this effect... but it also seems they never budget any money to run this dept.


My Native American Name:
"Runs with Scissors"
 
Posts: 4441 | Location: Greenville, SC | Registered: January 30, 2017Reply With QuoteReport This Post
delicately calloused
Picture of darthfuster
posted Hide Post
I disassembled my braced pistol……and made two AR-9 SBRs. You know, in honor of our oppressors.



You’re a lying dog-faced pony soldier
 
Posts: 29951 | Location: Norris Lake, TN | Registered: May 07, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Still finding my way
Picture of Ryanp225
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by darthfuster:
I disassembled my braced pistol……and made two AR-9 SBRs. You know, in honor of our oppressors.


 
Posts: 10851 | Registered: January 04, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Oriental Redneck
Picture of 12131
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Blume9mm:
For what it's worth this is how I understand some of the BATFE works...

in 2011 I applied for a tax stamp for a suppressor and was denied... the FBI does this .... I sent the ATF inspector the paper work showing the conviction I had in 1978 is now a misdemeanor .... was denied again and so the ATF inspector sent my appeal to the legal appeals department of the BATFE... seems they legally have to have an appeals department.... there is some law to this effect... but it also seems they never budget any money to run this dept.

Not sure how your situation has anything to do with the illegal attempted brace "ban" that is the topic of this thread.


Q






 
Posts: 28024 | Location: TEXAS | Registered: September 04, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Drill Here, Drill Now
Picture of tatortodd
posted Hide Post
The FPC has been battling BATFE and US Dept of Justice on our behalf in Mock v Garland. June 13th, the US District Court in North Texas vacated the pistol brace rule in its entirety.

Likely the feral gov't will appeal but the 5th Circuit is 2A friendly.



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: 23847 | Location: Northern Suburbs of Houston | Registered: November 14, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Oriental Redneck
Picture of 12131
posted Hide Post
Can some of you attorneys explain what the Conclusion by Judge Reed O'Connor mean? I read what it says but am kind of confused, since I'm obviously not a lawyer.

quote:
CONCLUSION

For the reasons set out above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment on the grounds that the Final Rule violated the APA's procedural requirements because it was arbitrary and capricious and was not a logical outgrowth of the Proposed Rule; DENIES Defendants' Cross Motion for Summary Judgment; DENIES Plaintiffs' request for a permanent injunction; and VACATES the Final Rule.

The last two parts are what I'm confused about, denying the plaintiffs' request for a permanent injunction but vacates the Final Rule.


Q






 
Posts: 28024 | Location: TEXAS | Registered: September 04, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Dies Irae
Picture of Opus Dei
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by 12131:
Can some of you attorneys explain what the Conclusion by Judge Reed O'Connor mean? I read what it says but am kind of confused, since I'm obviously not a lawyer.

quote:
CONCLUSION

For the reasons set out above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment on the grounds that the Final Rule violated the APA's procedural requirements because it was arbitrary and capricious and was not a logical outgrowth of the Proposed Rule; DENIES Defendants' Cross Motion for Summary Judgment; DENIES Plaintiffs' request for a permanent injunction; and VACATES the Final Rule.

The last two parts are what I'm confused about, denying the plaintiffs' request for a permanent injunction but vacates the Final Rule.
It reads to me like it's a moot point; no need to grant injunction against something disallowed.
 
Posts: 5785 | Location: Fort Heathen, Texas | Registered: February 25, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
A Grateful American
Picture of sigmonkey
posted Hide Post
^^^
"as if it never happened"




"the meaning of life, is to give life meaning" Ani Yehudi אני יהודי Le'olam lo shuv לעולם לא שוב!
 
Posts: 44592 | Location: ...... I am thrice divorced, and I live in a van DOWN BY THE RIVER!!! (in Arkansas) | Registered: December 20, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by 12131:
Can some of you attorneys explain what the Conclusion by Judge Reed O'Connor mean? I read what it says but am kind of confused, since I'm obviously not a lawyer.

quote:
CONCLUSION

For the reasons set out above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment on the grounds that the Final Rule violated the APA's procedural requirements because it was arbitrary and capricious and was not a logical outgrowth of the Proposed Rule; DENIES Defendants' Cross Motion for Summary Judgment; DENIES Plaintiffs' request for a permanent injunction; and VACATES the Final Rule.

The last two parts are what I'm confused about, denying the plaintiffs' request for a permanent injunction but vacates the Final Rule.
Vacatur is a remedy that can be applied under the Administration Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2). Vacatur is a stronger remedy than an injunction because it is universal, and it causes the unlawful agency regulation to lose its binding force in law entirely. The plaintiff's motion for SJ was granted, and the Court chose to vacate the brace rule under the APA instead of a more limited remedy.
 
Posts: 795 | Location: FL | Registered: July 30, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
That rug really tied
the room together.
Picture of bubbatime
posted Hide Post
So what does this mean? Still working through the courts on its way to the Supreme?


______________________________________________________
Often times a very small man can cast a very large shadow
 
Posts: 6708 | Location: Floriduh | Registered: October 16, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
ATF can only appeal to the 5th Circuit which given recent history that isn't going to go well for them. Presuming they are again defeated at the circuit level then the only option left is to appeal to the SCOTUS...and as long as the court remains as-is, that too will most likely go against the AFT. If we presume that Trump wins in November, then this ATF end around of the 2nd Amendment should be dead without taking it any farther, assuming The Donald honors any and all of his commitments to the gun community while campaigning for voting support. If Biden wins, well then it could go very badly if we start having justices on our side die off.


-MG
 
Posts: 2268 | Location: The commie, rainy side of WA | Registered: April 19, 2020Reply With QuoteReport This Post
His Royal Hiney
Picture of Rey HRH
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by monoblok:
ATF can only appeal to the 5th Circuit which given recent history that isn't going to go well for them. Presuming they are again defeated at the circuit level then the only option left is to appeal to the SCOTUS...and as long as the court remains as-is, that too will most likely go against the AFT. If we presume that Trump wins in November, then this ATF end around of the 2nd Amendment should be dead without taking it any farther, assuming The Donald honors any and all of his commitments to the gun community while campaigning for voting support. If Biden wins, well then it could go very badly if we start having justices on our side die off.


For 2A supporters, even when Trump wins, wouldn’t it be better if Trump allows the ATF to appeal all the way to SCOTUS for a final ruling? If he stops the ATF from appealing, couldn’t a later administration revive the appeal to a possibly different SCOTUS?



"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: 20193 | Location: The Free State of Arizona - Ditat Deus | Registered: March 24, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 ... 36 37 38 39 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