National Pistol brace rule enjoined nationwide

[lucusloc]

Looks like the court just enjoined the pistol brace rule on administrative grounds (ATV violated rule-making statutes in their letter). This seems to be the final step before the rule is fully struck down.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.372602/gov.uscourts.txnd.372602.68.0_1.pdf

Read More

 

[arakboss]

If it was enjoined nationwide why was this necessary.

NRA-ILA | NRA Scores Legal Victory Against ATF; “Pistol Brace Rule” Enjoined From Going Into Effect Against NRA Members

NRA Members Among the Largest Class Protected from Draconian Rule

www.nraila.org

 

[PiratePast40]

If it was enjoined nationwide why was this necessary.

NRA-ILA | NRA Scores Legal Victory Against ATF; “Pistol Brace Rule” Enjoined From Going Into Effect Against NRA Members

NRA Members Among the Largest Class Protected from Draconian Rule

www.nraila.org

Because the NRA needs your donations. Hand made, custom tailored Italian suits ain't cheap you know!

 

[PiratePast40]

Fifth Circuit has finally ruled that the AFT overstepped their authority on the pistol brace rule. Here's the link. The federal government will, of course appeal and then we'll be back in the circus.

I believe the same authority exists as before, i.e., those living in the fifth circuit areas and members of organizations named in the lawsuit are exempt from the pistol brace rule. As always, those that have no reason to be in the federal spotlight, will most likely proceed as usual. AKA, we don't need no stinking badges!

 

[Yarome]

Fifth Circuit has finally ruled that the AFT overstepped their authority on the pistol brace rule. Here's the link. The federal government will, of course appeal and then we'll be back in the circus.

I believe the same authority exists as before, i.e., those living in the fifth circuit areas and members of organizations named in the lawsuit are exempt from the pistol brace rule. As always, those that have no reason to be in the federal spotlight, will most likely proceed as usual. AKA, we don't need no stinking badges!

That is the District Court summary judgement and vacates the rule in it's entirety. Ergo... nationwide affect.





There is no doubt it will be appealed, but for the moment, break out the shovels or go pull up the boat anchor! Enjoy a little smoke throwin.

 

[CamoDeafie]

You know, this case could be a great justification to at least remove "SBR/SBS" from the NFA...

Because it proves that based on Heller and Bruen; that short barreled firearms other than pistols are in fact, commonly possessed for lawful purposes, even with the registered SBRs/SBS.

Based on the usage of "Dangerous And Unusual weapons".

That's if there rise a direct Constitutional challenge to the SBR/SBS part of NFA

 

[ilikegunspdx]

You know, this case could be a great justification to at least remove "SBR/SBS" from the NFA...

Because it proves that based on Heller and Bruen; that short barreled firearms other than pistols are in fact, commonly possessed for lawful purposes, even with the registered SBRs/SBS.

Based on the usage of "Dangerous And Unusual weapons".

That's if there rise a direct Constitutional challenge to the SBR/SBS part of NFA

Definitely could be. But I think it's a stepwise process of building the wall brick by brick. So far the emphasis has been on reigning in the agencies power to make shot up, recievers, bump stock, soon to lose chevron deference etc. as Alito said about bump stocks, Congress can make them illegal if they want, but atf can't just decide they are illegal after POTUS pressure. And since sbs/sbrs regs were passed by congress, that's a hill too big to climb, at least for right now, imo.

Logically though the 1934 Laws no longer fit modern weapons. Fe a 14.5" barrel stocked gun is dangerous and unusual but the 16" version is not. And countless other examples.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Definitely could be. But I think it's a stepwise process of building the wall brick by brick. So far the emphasis has been on reigning in the agencies power to make shot up, recievers, bump stock, soon to lose chevron deference etc. as Alito said about bump stocks, Congress can make them illegal if they want, but atf can't just decide they are illegal after POTUS pressure. And since sbs/sbrs regs were passed by congress, that's a hill too big to climb, at least for right now, imo.

Logically though the 1934 Laws no longer fit modern weapons. Fe a 14.5" barrel stocked gun is dangerous and unusual but the 16" version is not. And countless other examples.

Logically too, a 2nd VFG on a handgun makes it safer and more accurate but no its "dangerous and unusual" and subject to AOW $200 making tax ( $5 transfer right?)

 

[Yarome]

You know, this case could be a great justification to at least remove "SBR/SBS" from the NFA...

Because it proves that based on Heller and Bruen; that short barreled firearms other than pistols are in fact, commonly possessed for lawful purposes, even with the registered SBRs/SBS.

Based on the usage of "Dangerous And Unusual weapons".

That's if there rise a direct Constitutional challenge to the SBR/SBS part of NFA

Yes, and no.
The yes part: Some determinations made within the opinion could strengthen a challenge to remove them from the NFA, but...
The no part: It didn't establish any case law and was ruled purely on APA grounds without touching on any part of the 2A challenge.

In practical terms, it's only a District court ruling and the scope of the courts decision is limited to the procedural violation... in that particular case, only.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Yes, and no.
The yes part: Some determinations made within the opinion could strengthen a challenge to remove them from the NFA, but...
The no part: It didn't establish any case law and was ruled purely on APA grounds without touching on any part of the 2A challenge.

In practical terms, it's only a District court ruling and the scope of the courts decision is limited to the procedural violation... in that particular case, only.

Thats why I said If there comes a direct challenge to the SBR/SBS portion of the NFA on Constitutional grounds as opposed to the APA/ Chevron overturning.

Edit, meaning a new lawsuit or some such, using the number of braced firearms in circulation, along with the number of registered SBR/SBS in light of Caetano