National Fifth circuit injunction against the ATF pistol brace rule.

[CamoDeafie]

What interest does SCOTUS have in preserving an exception to the SBR part of the NFA?

I get the people don't like ATF taking back their previous ruling, but what Constitutional matter is at stake? It isn't a "taking clause" matter since free SBR status was offered

It's not about "preserving an exception to SBR rule"; it's about the ATF not having the authority to expand what defines "designed/redesigned/made/remade, intended to be fired from the shoulder" for a "rifle"; whereas Congress explicitly must pass a law to expand the definitions of a rifle, short barreled rifle. And so on.

 

[Howard1955]

I think the ATF have always said that long before the pistol brace thing... same for cane tips.

Cane tips?

 

[CamoDeafie]

Cane tips?

Yeah. These. From the internet.

 

[Howard1955]

Thanks.

I was wondering if I was going to become a felon because of the rubber tip on my cane.

 

[chipotle]

Thanks.

I was wondering if I was going to become a felon because of the rubber tip on my cane.

Never rule out "Constructive Possession"

 

[CamoDeafie]

Thanks.

I was wondering if I was going to become a felon because of the rubber tip on my cane.

Only if you put it on an AR pistol and shoulder it

 

[RX-79G]

It's not about "preserving an exception to SBR rule"; it's about the ATF not having the authority to expand what defines "designed/redesigned/made/remade, intended to be fired from the shoulder" for a "rifle"; whereas Congress explicitly must pass a law to expand the definitions of a rifle, short barreled rifle. And so on.

Wouldn't that require SCOTUS to look at a brace equipped firearm and decide that a reasonable person would see the brace as appearing, functioning and actually commonly used in a distinct manner from a stock? Otherwise it just ends up being a stock and falling under the ATF's purview without a new law being necessary.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Wouldn't that require SCOTUS to look at a brace equipped rifle and decide that a reasonable person would see the brace as appearing, functioning and actually commonly used in a distinct manner from a stock? Otherwise it just ends up being a stock and falling under the ATF's purview without a new law being necessary.

We don't know. They may not even do that. It all depends on how the 5th District rules, and also... if SCOTUS applies Bruen ; the potential is there for them to strike parts of the NFA down, if not the whole of it (we'd like whole of it but... it's not that likely); based on the Text as informed by History and Tradition test, as well as potentially the Caetano opinion, in which there's a threshold of "common use". What I believe is far more likely, that the SCOTUS may strike down the SBR portion if ATF's argument is that the brace equipped firearm are "dangerous and unusual weapons" , and they appeal all the way to SCOTUS on that argument.. which will fall flat because..

A) if a Brace Equipped weapon is a SBR;

B) and there are more than 7 million of them


Then

C) SBRs are in common use.


But if the ATF argues that brace equipped firearms are not SBRs but should be considered the same anyhow; then

A) pistol braces are protected by 2A by being in common use

B) the Final Rule is thrown out

C) but it sets the stage for another SCOTUS decision regarding NFA against Text as Informed by History and Tradition.

Edit.

The big argument it looks like.. is..

Does the ATF have [/i]the authority[/i] to expand on what is defined as a rifle/SBR as set forth by Congress?

And if so; then why did they say pistol braces OK in the first place?

If no, then why won't Congress pass a law to amend GCA/NFA to expand the definition of a rifle?

 

[RX-79G]

We don't know. They may not even do that. It all depends on how the 5th District rules, and also... if SCOTUS applies Bruen ; the potential is there for them to strike parts of the NFA down, if not the whole of it (we'd like whole of it but... it's not that likely); based on the Text as informed by History and Tradition test, as well as potentially the Caetano opinion, in which there's a threshold of "common use". What I believe is far more likely, that the SCOTUS may strike down the SBR portion if ATF's argument is that the brace equipped firearm are "dangerous and unusual weapons" , and they appeal all the way to SCOTUS on that argument.. which will fall flat because..

A) if a Brace Equipped weapon is a SBR;

B) and there are more than 7 million of them


Then

C) SBRs are in common use.


But if the ATF argues that brace equipped firearms are not SBRs but should be considered the same anyhow; then

A) pistol braces are protected by 2A by being in common use

B) the Final Rule is thrown out

C) but it sets the stage for another SCOTUS decision regarding NFA against Text as Informed by History and Tradition.

I'm afraid that's a bit like saying cocaine is in common use after the DEA accidentally legalized it.

The popularity of a recently deregulated item might not be viewed as "common use", especially if the brace function itself is not commonly used at all.

 

[CamoDeafie]

I'm afraid that's a bit like saying cocaine is in common use after the DEA accidentally legalized it.

The popularity of a recently deregulated item might not be viewed as "common use", especially if the brace function itself is not commonly used at all.

The more precise wording is.. "commonly possessed for lawful purposes such as self defense and other purposes".. Cocaine has no current lawful purposes

Also, in cases relating to regulations or laws with criminal penalties; the rule of Lenity must be applied, not Chevron Deference.

Therefore it is more likely that the pistol brace rule itself will get overturned and there is a possibility that it will lead to the SBR portion of NFA being nullified; if Thomas and others uses the Caetano Opinion as a guidelines (over 200,000 =, commonly possessed for lawful purposes ) in addition to Heller's Common use at the time test.

 

[RX-79G]

The more precise wording is.. "commonly possessed for lawful purposes such as self defense and other purposes".. Cocaine has no current lawful purposes

Also, in cases relating to regulations or laws with criminal penalties; the rule of Lenity must be applied, not Chevron Deference.

Therefore it is more likely that the pistol brace rule itself will get overturned and there is a possibility that it will lead to the SBR portion of NFA being nullified; if Thomas and others uses the Caetano Opinion as a guidelines (over 200,000 =, commonly possessed for lawful purposes ) in addition to Heller's Common use at the time test.

Just saying, letting the cows out of the barn doesn't prove they are wild animals. The NFA and original brace ruling created the demand, not a previously held utility.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Just saying, letting the cows out of the barn doesn't prove they are wild animals. The NFA and original brace ruling created the demand, not a previously held utility.

But ATF told Steve Bosco that his brace designs not a stock and therefore not NFA item and legal to make and sell... millions of braces have been sold since 2012; ergo, since then, millions of pistol brace equipped firearms are commonly possessed for lawful purposes. Because of that, the SBR portion of NFA may be nullified/eliminated, but the Final Rule is very likely to be overturned, thus returning us to what is basically "status quo" before 2020...IE, pistol braced firearms are not SBRs according to District Courts and possibly SCOTUS; and Congress will have to pass a law to expand what a SBR/Rifle is to amend NFA and GCA... (and likely one Party wants to add all AR/AKs/ Assault Weapons to the NFA as well )

 

[Yarome]

Looks like GOA's Texas case is in. Injunction ordered, but pretty much a carbon copy of the FPC's.

A win is a win, but national would sure be nice.

(Nothing new to see here)

 

[RX-79G]

But ATF told Steve Bosco that his brace designs not a stock and therefore not NFA item and legal to make and sell... millions of braces have been sold since 2012; ergo, since then, millions of pistol brace equipped firearms are commonly possessed for lawful purposes. Because of that, the SBR portion of NFA may be nullified/eliminated, but the Final Rule is very likely to be overturned, thus returning us to what is basically "status quo" before 2020...IE, pistol braced firearms are not SBRs according to District Courts and possibly SCOTUS; and Congress will have to pass a law to expand what a SBR/Rifle is to amend NFA and GCA... (and likely one Party wants to add all AR/AKs/ Assault Weapons to the NFA as well )

It just seems a bit odd that the non-legislative decision by a government agency could cause a Constitutional conflict between legislation and 2a. That's like your postman causing a free speech crisis.

 

[eustace_stelio]

I'm afraid that's a bit like saying cocaine is in common use after the DEA accidentally legalized it.

The popularity of a recently deregulated item might not be viewed as "common use", especially if the brace function itself is not commonly used at all.

No it's nothing like that lol. I mean if we're making up hypotheticals then let's say it's like me waking up next to a 25 year old Jennifer Lopez every morning... derpy derp

 

[CamoDeafie]

The big constitutional crisis is not the SBR portion itself nor the pistol brace itself. It is the criminal penalties set in the Rule that Congress did not legislate/pass. It is arguably an abuse of the Separation of Powers.

Chevron Deference only applies to civil acts; such as being fined for violating the EPA regulations but not being arrested/thrown into jail as a criminal.

For cases involving any laws or regulations that have criminal penalties; Rule of Lenity is in play, and must be decided/ruled on the side of the citizen and not the government. (See Thompson Center Arms 1992, Staples 1993, Heller 2008, Macdonald, Caetano 2016 )

I have said this a few times before.

If Congress passed a law to Amend the GCA to include the subjective criteria into the definitions of a Firearm, a rifle or short barreled rifle, then perhaps there would not be as much wailing and gnashing of teeth and the ATF and DOJ wouldn't be involved in several suits over this. Maybe there would be a SCOTUS case but it'd be more of against the US and not the DOJ/AG or ATF Director IMO.

 

[RX-79G]

If Congress passed a law to Amend the GCA to include the subjective criteria into the definitions of a Firearm, a rifle or short barreled rifle, then perhaps there would not be as much wailing and gnashing of teeth and the ATF and DOJ wouldn't be involved in several suits over this. Maybe there would be a SCOTUS case but it'd be more of against the US and not the DOJ/AG or ATF Director IMO.

Seems like the problem is that the ATF is removing a subjective definition rather than adding one. Interesting.

I wonder if the way out of this for the ATF is to make the penalties for having a brace only civil?

 

[ilikegunspdx]

So now it seems official that members of FPC (have to pay min of $20 to be a member now after their rule change this Sunday), GOA, and SAF are all covered via 3 separate injunctions of the brace rule. Everyone assumes it means nation-wide for those members (not just the 5th circuit) and it sure seems that way at this point. Wa gun law guy just did a video on the SAF but not GOA. Not sure why he focused on only SAF.

Article on goa ruling:

GOA, GOF, State of Texas Secure Preliminary Injunction Against Biden Pistol Brace Ban | GOA

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE May 31, 2023 Washington, D.C. – This evening, Judge Drew B. Tipton issued a preliminary injunction against the Biden Pistol Brace Ban in a lawsuit brought by Gun Owners of America (GOA), the Gun Owners Foundation (GOF), and the State of Texas. This injunction applies to all...

www.gunowners.org

 

[Local Loader]

Senate vote on removing the brace rule 49-50 (Y-N) W/1 non-vote

U.S. Senate: U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 118th Congress - 1st Session

www.senate.gov

Edit: I know he's a (D)Wyden (D-OR) but he has claimed before that he is a supporter of Oregonians 2A rights and he voted against this. (insert random remarks/complaints about D's from people) lets be above that, we're better than that.
What should be done is politely make him eat those words and hold him to them. Send letters/emails/phone calls whichever you chose and express(in a polite way) how disappointed you are at his failure to support disabled Oregonians 2A rights and for accepting/agreeing that placing a financial burden on disable Oregonians was acceptable. You can also make a point that things like this can potentially cost him swing votes of 2A supporters in the D/R/Indy/Non-Affil groups that he once had.
You can do this for Merkley (D-OR) as well but not sure what good it will do.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Senate vote on removing the brace rule 49-50

U.S. Senate: U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 118th Congress - 1st Session

www.senate.gov

Yup. Of course straight Party Line.


Edit. So that leaves District Courts ( ) and then SCOTUS to overturn and spank the DOJ... but is anyone here expecting the Feds and the State govts to abide by any of the District or SCOTUS decisions?