quote:

Originally posted by TVzombie:
Latest update from Washington Gun Law

Statewide relief for Texas.

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

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.

---

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

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 .

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.”

[

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

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

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

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...