National Pistol Brace Litigation Post 01/31

[bradsteen]

Great news! Do you know where is the part that says it's nationwide? I skimmed it and didn't see that. Maybe it's in another parties interpretation? Or I may have just missed it. Or it could be in the earlier court cases of the same case?

I see that one of the arguments by the judgeis the cost of marking the firearm under the rule. I think according to the written rule it does say that but in implementation of the rule atf eleiminated the marking. It's a minor thing and only one of the factors the judge used for irreparable harm. But something the defendants may use on appeal in the future. Just one of the many factors that makes the rule so confusing that lawyers and judges can't figure out what is legal, much less the common citizen. Cant be fair to send someone to jail for 10 years when no one can figure out their conflicting and nubelous rules. Whole thing needs to be thrown out in its entirety ASAP!

The last sentence says the rule is stayed in it's entirety, which implies the rule is prevented from being enforced across the board. Also, throughout the doc there are references to nationwide impact the rule will have on the industry. I would think the judge would articulate in the ruling if the stay was only applicable to the plaintiffs.

 

[The Heretic]

The last sentence says the rule is stayed in it's entirety, which implies the rule is prevented from being enforced across the board.

That's good - because my last reading of the rule included braces for "firearms" like the Shockwave/Tac-14/et. al. - equating them to a SBS if they have a brace installed.

 

[Yarome]

Do you know where is the part that says it's nationwide?

The last sentence says the rule is stayed in it's entirety, which implies the rule is prevented from being enforced across the board.

What he said.



On the monetary argument, it wasn't just the engraving fee that would be unrecoverable to satisfy the rule, but also the financial impact on the industry producers of those products. Much like the EPA case... when "significant financial impact" issues are in play it puts their rule making beyond the scope of an agencies authority and requires an act of congress.

Just adding another nail in their coffin.

 

[kmk1012]

So, is this just a temporary ruling or will they start selling them again? I've read through all the back and forth and I'm not a legal eagle so I'm guessing it's a temporary ruling until they can make another law?!?!?

 

[ilikegunspdx]

So, is this just a temporary ruling or will they start selling them again? I've read through all the back and forth and I'm not a legal eagle so I'm guessing it's a temporary ruling until they can make another law?!?!?

My guess is most if not Al will wait until atf caves or puts out some type of opinion.

IMO ATF will think nothing in the slightest has changed until they are directed to do something by scotus, not any lower court. Doesn't mean it's actually enforceable, but I bet atf will think it is and imo that's likely enough to scare the vendors.

 

[The Heretic]

IMO ATF will think nothing in the slightest has changed until they are directed to do something by scotus, not any lower court. Doesn't mean it's actually enforceable, but I bet atf will think it is and imo that's likely enough to scare the vendors.

Government in general, and the ATF in particular, act as if what the courts say has no bearing on them.

What they actually think I do not know.

 

[Diamondback]

11/08 - Texas District Court stays the pistol brace rule in it's entirety... nationwide!

https://will-law.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/177116400067.pdf

Some great reading and quite comprehensive ruling. Not that the goobs won't trip over themselves whining to have it overturned, but some of the arguments are going to make it pretty tough!

* Just a reminder that the GOA, FPC, SAF members injunction is still active.

Noice!!!

Cool, I have THREE separate injunctions protecting me. Suck on THAT, SS-Obersturmbannfuhrer Dettelbach and SS-Reichsfuhrer Garland!

Any day that a Federal judge bens those two over his bench and takes them to poundtown like they were pedos in GenPop is a good day for America...

 

[sobo]

I'm just glad I treated this whole pistol-brace ban/litigation like it never happened ( I was already a member of FPC/FPF).

But I sure wish I woulda done the same with the bumpstock ban before it. Live and learn, I guess...

 

[vanlab]

I'm just glad I treated this whole pistol-brace ban/litigation like it never happened ( I was already a member of FPC/FPF).

But I sure wish I woulda done the same with the bumpstock ban before it. Live and learn, I guess...

All gun laws are unconstitutional

 

[CamoDeafie]

All gun laws are unconstitutional

All civil laws that do nothing about crime are IMO unconstitutional.

Laws that are related to punishments for crimes, sure. No problems there. Laws that criminalizes liberty? Heck no.

 

[wired]

My guess is most if not Al will wait until atf caves or puts out some type of opinion.

IMO ATF will think nothing in the slightest has changed until they are directed to do something by scotus, not any lower court. Doesn't mean it's actually enforceable, but I bet atf will think it is and imo that's likely enough to scare the vendors.

The ATF will concede nothing until the fat ladies at SCOTUS sing. . That means dealers will not be authorized to sell braced pistols no matter what district courts say.
The ATF will not be going after end users but really they hardly ever prosecute SBR's anyway. Those are typically done at the state level . The ATF really only cares about Machineguns.

 

[Yarome]

The ATF will concede nothing until the fat ladies at SCOTUS sing. . That means dealers will not be authorized to sell braced pistols no matter what district courts say.
The ATF will not be going after end users but really they hardly ever prosecute SBR's anyway. Those are typically done at the state level . The ATF really only cares about Machineguns.

Your hopes and dreams?

The point we're at is a preliminary stay in it's entirety. The goobs have the option to appeal... to the 5th district... which makes it highly unlikely for them that the 5th with completely reverse it's own decision and rule in their favor.

The next step for us is a permanent stay/vacature. That's entirely likely... at which point... we/us/fll's/dealers are free to own/buy/sale/use braced pistols at our hearts content... until such time that the SCOTUS decides to hear the case... or not... and if so, at least until the SC hears and rules on the case on the APA basis. That could be a year or more out.

As it stands, technically speaking, dealers are fully authorized to sell and any enforcement action by the alphabet would be unlawful. It's a bit premature though since there remains the possibility, even remotely, that the stay may be reversed or modified. If that happens then I'm quite sure the alphabet would go after any FFL that sold any during the preliminary stay, much like they have before in similar cases.

It's not a case though that they are "not authorized" to do so... at the present. It's simply not prudent to do so... yet.

 

[wired]

Your hopes and dreams?

The point we're at is a preliminary stay in it's entirety. The goobs have the option to appeal... to the 5th district... which makes it highly unlikely for them that the 5th with completely reverse it's own decision and rule in their favor.

The next step for us is a permanent stay/vacature. That's entirely likely... at which point... we/us/fll's/dealers are free to own/buy/sale/use braced pistols at our hearts content... until such time that the SCOTUS decides to hear the case... or not... and if so, at least until the SC hears and rules on the case on the APA basis. That could be a year or more out.

As it stands, technically speaking, dealers are fully authorized to sell and any enforcement action by the alphabet would be unlawful. It's a bit premature though since there remains the possibility, even remotely, that the stay may be reversed or modified. If that happens then I'm quite sure the alphabet would go after any FFL that sold any during the preliminary stay, much like they have before in similar cases.

It's not a case though that they are "not authorized" to do so... at the present. It's simply not prudent to do so... yet.

If and when the SCOTUS rules on the case and if the court throws out the brace ban then and only then will the ATF authorize dealers to proceed with sales of braced pistols. Thats their M.O. . And yeah, they stay can be reversed at any time. Its not settled..

 

[Yarome]

If and when the SCOTUS rules on the case and if the court throws out the brace ban then and only then will the ATF authorize dealers to proceed with sales of braced pistols. Thats their M.O. . And yeah, they stay can be reversed at any time. Its not settled..

I've never been a firearm retailer. The alphabet can selectively ban FFL's from selling a class of legal firearm?

 

[wired]

I've never been a firearm retailer. The alphabet can selectively ban FFL's from selling a class of legal firearm?

Yes. To them they are just in the court process and they can shut an FFL down quite easily. After SCOTUS they stand right out of the way but not until then. Thats my world.

 

[American123]

Brace owners and the felon status line:

 

[MichaelH]

Really it's not over, but you can put your brace and pistol in the same room again or even back together for now. Preliminary injunctive relief is granted before there has even been a trial on the merits but we can guess who'd win. Because the Fifth Circuit is the conservative version of the Ninth Circuit* the case might be appealed, but if the trial court avoids the constitutional question and the other grounds for invalidating the law are sound then ATF might just start again and not bother appealing. It'll be interesting to monitor.

* CF US v Rahimi, a Texas criminal case on appeal where defendant dragged girlfriend by hair around car and threw her in it and then fired a shot when a bystander tried to intervene. Girlfriend got a restraining order and defendant ignored the requirement he surrender firearms under the VAWA. In the next month or so he shot said firearm in public about five times and was eventually arrested for threatening another woman with it. I forget the posture at the moment, but the VAWA violation was overturned/dismissed (?) and the Fifth circuit agreed . Looks like the Supremes aren't buying that the VAWA prohibition is protected by the 2A, but the opinion isn't written yet. Most people expect it might narrow the Bruen ruling, which is why you don't want to appeal on bad facts if you don't want to change the law in unexpected ways.

 

[ma96782]

Hummmm.......could I/might I add my own correction here?

Government Politicians in general, and the ATF in particular, act as if what the courts say has no bearing on them.

Aloha, Mark

 

[The Heretic]

Hummmm.......could I/might I add my own correction here?


Aloha, Mark

Bureaucrats + Politicians

 

[Brownsalamander]

So we can or cannot put pistol braces back on?