National Pistol Brace rule Dropped!

[Diamondback]

#90 in Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, Inc. v. Garland (D.N.D., 1:23-cv-00024) – CourtListener.com

ORDER by Judge Daniel L. Hovland denying 7 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; denying 8 Motion for Oral Argument. (SK) Distributed on 9/12/2023. (jb) (Entered: 09/12/2023)

www.courtlistener.com

SCOTUS here we go? Since ND district Judge ruled the opposite of the other pistol brace District opinion?

Can't wait to see SCOTUS give this guy a PMITA since he goes out of his way to take a whizz in their faces on Heller, Bruen etc at every opportunity.

 

[wired]

#90 in Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, Inc. v. Garland (D.N.D., 1:23-cv-00024) – CourtListener.com

ORDER by Judge Daniel L. Hovland denying 7 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; denying 8 Motion for Oral Argument. (SK) Distributed on 9/12/2023. (jb) (Entered: 09/12/2023)

www.courtlistener.com

SCOTUS here we go? Since ND district Judge ruled the opposite of the other pistol brace District opinion?

maybe. They could just decline to hear it. Not everything goes to SCOTUS

 

[billdeserthills]

maybe. They could just decline to hear it. Not everything goes to SCOTUS

Braces are a common use item-- I never would have even bought my first brace if those atf jack@sses hadn't said they were legal in the first place

 

[wired]

Braces are a common use item-- I never would have even bought my first brace if those atf jack@sses hadn't said they were legal in the first place

Legal theory so far that has only been tested once and for what? Tasers? . I dont really think the common use is going to be the panacea its made out to be. If its the constitutionaly thats in question I dont know how the SBR clause in the NFA is unconstitutional in the narrow sense . Whether braces are really stocks is more the question.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Braces are a common use item-- I never would have even bought my first brace if those atf jack@sses hadn't said they were legal in the first place

Legal theory so far that has only been tested once and for what? Tasers? . I dont really think the common use is going to be the panacea its made out to be. If its the constitutionaly thats in question I dont know how the SBR clause in the NFA is unconstitutional in the narrow sense . Whether braces are really stocks is more the question.

By the same token; Silencers/suppressors definitely has a common use basis to be removed from the NFA; but that hasn't happened; Congress won't let it happen. If SCOTUS ever eviscerates the NFA to only machine guns and Destructive Devices; it may still not make much difference; especially if Congress manages to pass more anti-2A laws and stack SCOTUS in order to reverse Bruen and Heller.

 

[Rkangel]

Looks like the the 5th circuit just extended the injunction in perpetuity for all the plaintiffs listed in that court case, including members of FPC. Along with a potential glimmer of hope for a pathway of litigation for removing SBRs from the NFA.

 

[Lilhigbee]

Still waiting for someone to explain how an injunction against a federal law or rule can only protect a certain group of people specified by the judge. Seems a clear violation of the "equal protection" clause.

 

[Yarome]

I dont know how the SBR clause in the NFA is unconstitutional in the narrow sense .

No??? How about the fact they are neither particularly more "dangerous" than any other semi-auto firearm... nor... "unusual". By any narrow sense... their inclusion in the NFA certainly has constitutional grounds for challenge.

 

[Flopsweat]

No??? How about the fact they are neither particularly more "dangerous" than any other semi-auto firearm... nor... "unusual". By any narrow sense... their inclusion in the NFA certainly has constitutional grounds for challenge.

One could easily argue that they are a bit less dangerous than a pistol of the same form factor, because they are more accurate. But frankly, the entire NFA is unconstitutional when viewed under Bruen.

 

[Lilhigbee]

No??? How about the fact they are neither particularly more "dangerous" than any other semi-auto firearm... nor... "unusual". By any narrow sense... their inclusion in the NFA certainly has constitutional grounds for challenge.

Don't forget that there is no "historical context" for restricting them, and there are thousands if not hundreds of thousands of them "in common use" in spite of the onerous rules to posses them.

 

[Yarome]

Don't forget that there is no "historical context" for restricting them, and there are thousands if not hundreds of thousands of them "in common use" in spite of the onerous rules to posses them.

Well, yeah. That's kind of why the whole, " I dont know how the SBR clause in the NFA is unconstitutional.." statement was rather shocking.

Just because something made it into "law"... at any level... no matter how long standing... doesn't magically transform it into constitutionally valid. Likely more difficult to vacate once an unconstitutional law has been accepted by the masses as the acceptable baseline status quo, but it's still ripe for challenge and the pistol brace rule may crack the door open a little wider... if successful. Baby steps...

Personally though, I think using the APA and undoing chevron deference is the more critical issue at the moment. Cutting them off at the root not only vacates the pistol brace rule, but would impact the others... and... slows them down in the future from doing similar executive "lawmaking". Not that brandon will stop, but at least a SCOTUS precedence would give them a good kick in the nethers to think about for awhile... as well as make it easier for similar challenges.

 

[Flopsweat]

Well, yeah. That's kind of why the whole, " I dont know how the SBR clause in the NFA is unconstitutional.." statement was rather shocking.

Just because something made it into "law"... at any level... no matter how long standing... doesn't magically transform it into constitutionally valid. Likely more difficult to vacate once an unconstitutional law has been accepted by the masses as the acceptable baseline status quo, but it's still ripe for challenge and the pistol brace rule may crack the door open a little wider... if successful. Baby steps...

I don't know how you can be more clear than "Shall not be infringed." There is no safety clause, there is no emergency clause, there are no fees or license implied, feelings are not mentioned once.

 

[wired]

No??? How about the fact they are neither particularly more "dangerous" than any other semi-auto firearm... nor... "unusual". By any narrow sense... their inclusion in the NFA certainly has constitutional grounds for challenge.

Thats not a question of constitutionality. The NFA was passed and upheld on the basis of Congresses ability to levy excise taxes. The $200 transfer tax is an excise tax. Nothing was banned. All manufacturer produced firearms have excise taxes levied on them.

 

[wired]

Don't forget that there is no "historical context" for restricting them, and there are thousands if not hundreds of thousands of them "in common use" in spite of the onerous rules to posses them.

The NFA has been in existence for almost 90 years. Again , they have been taxed for 90 years , which has been previously upheld as constitutional by the courts. They were not banned. If 90 years with relevant court challenges in that period isnt a historical context under our system of jurisprudence and due process, I dont know what is.


What I see is a bunch of people who never gave a damn about the NFA until it affected them.

 

[Yarome]

The NFA has been in existence for almost 90 years. Again , they have been taxed for 90 years , which has been previously upheld as constitutional by the courts. They were not banned. If 90 years of historical context with court challenges upheld in that time isnt a historical context under our system of jurisprudence and due process I dont know what is.

All I see is a bunch of people who never gave a damn about the NFA until it affected them.

Slavery was "legal" in the U.S. for nearly 90 years too. For that matter... if the Bruen test of historical tradition was applied... it would hold water for legal argument today.

How did that all play out?

Kinda silly, I know. But so is the argument that if a law has been around long enough it becomes untouchable and gains full legal legitimacy.

Stating otherwise is just like the lefts arguments that many of our current 2A infringement laws have been upheld as constitutional for decades. They simply neglect to mention that those rulings were under the two step interest balancing method... which is no longer legally allowed (and technically hasn't been allowed for decades)... and completely changes the playing field, Today!

I agree though that "dangerous AND unusual" would be too monumental to overcome. That doesn't mean that the NFA is beyond ratification or at the very least a stricter adherence to the definitions and qualifications as currently outlined. In that context, many SBR's do not qualify under the "and" qualification... and let's face it... taxing an inalienable right has NEVER been consistent with law. They simply got away with it... for a very long time... and there haven't been the legal tools nor sufficient support to repeal it. That may change.

No currently standing law is "untouchable" simply because it's been allowed to remain on the books for a very long time. Belittling renewed interest against it is a weak mans game.

Everyone's entitled to support whatever laws they choose. Legal or not. Just don't be shocked when members of a pro-2A community don't jump on your bandwagon.

 

[Stomper]

The NFA has been in existence for almost 90 years. Again , they have been taxed for 90 years , which has been previously upheld as constitutional by the courts. They were not banned. If 90 years with relevant court challenges in that period isnt a historical context under our system of jurisprudence and due process, I dont know what is.


What I see is a bunch of people who never gave a damn about the NFA until it affected them.

I want the MG "registry" opened back up so a $1,500 M16 doesn't have to cost $55k…. but then the FAOPA of '86 bans all governments from making and maintaining gun owner registries….

 

[wired]

Slavery was "legal" in the U.S. for nearly 90 years too. For that matter... if the Bruen test of historical tradition was applied... it would hold water for legal argument today.

How did that all play out?

Kinda silly, I know. But so is the argument that if a law has been around long enough it becomes untouchable and gains full legal legitimacy.

Stating otherwise is just like the lefts arguments that many of our current 2A infringement laws have been upheld as constitutional for decades. They simply neglect to mention that those rulings were under the two step interest balancing method... which is no longer legally allowed... and completely changes the playing field, Today!

I agree though that "dangerous AND unusual" would be too monumental to overcome. That doesn't mean that the NFA is beyond ratification or at the very least a stricter adherence to the definitions and qualifications as currently outlined. In that context, many SBR's do not qualify under the "and" qualification... and let's face it... taxing an inalienable right has NEVER been consistent with law. They simply got away with it... for a very long time... and there haven't been the legal tools nor sufficient support to repeal it. That may change.

No currently standing law is "untouchable" simply because it's been allowed to remain on the books for a very long time. Belittling renewed interest against it is a weak mans game.

Everyone's entitled to support whatever laws they choose. Legal or not. Just don't be shocked when members of a pro-2A community don't jump on your bandwagon.

Slavery was constitutional. Hell,. the Constitution was written very carefully to fit the practice of slavery in it so that it remained constitutional until the Constitution itself had to be amended to ban the practice. If anything, it could be argued that Lincolns Emancipation Proclamation itself was unconstitutional.

Supporting anything is immaterial. It is what it is and we have a system of laws and under our weird system of semi common law and due process for the NFA, or large sections of it, to become overturned based on excise tax being incongruous with the 2nd amendment well, that would be unprecedented to say the least given that every gun produced or imported into the country has been excise taxed since 1919.

 

[wired]

I want the MG "registry" opened back up so a $1,500 M16 doesn't have to cost $55k…. but then the FAOPA of '86 bans all governments from making and maintaining gun owner registries….

The '86 MG gun ban is a good example of something that is probably unconstitutional on several grounds yet that doesn't matter because its still in effect , the ATF aggressively prosecutes it and the courts turn a blind eye.

 

[Rkangel]

A judge is finally making some good rulings. A crack in the door if the NFA is starting to appear. There may be an opportunity for us to regain some of our rights and freedoms. Yet it's amazing to me that some within the gun community will continue to be apologists for registration, and flag bearers for the NFA, and proponents for a tax on a right.

Some here will say that that gun laws are gun laws and if we don't like them we should change them. Yet when there is a real albeit slim chance to change the NFA, they will argue with anyone supporting the removal of items from the NFA. The free exercise of rights benefits everyone, but it appears there are some who don't want this to actually happen. I can only surmise their reasons.

Personally, I don't care if I spent $10k on tax stamps for SBRs or silencers. If there is is a chance to roll back even a fraction of the NFA, I am not going cry sour grapes because others in the future may not have to pay the fees I did. They are working tirelessly, giving up their time, donating money to cases and organizations. In the end they have probably spent more money than me for the benefit others, than I did on tax stamps for the benefit of myself.

 

[wired]

A judge is finally making some good rulings. A crack in the door if the NFA is starting to appear. There may be an opportunity for us to regain some of our rights and freedoms. Yet it's amazing to me that some within the gun community will continue to be apologists for registration, and flag bearers for the NFA, and proponents for a tax on a right.

Some here will say that that gun laws are gun laws and if we don't like them we should change them. Yet when there is a real albeit slim chance to change the NFA, they will argue with anyone supporting the removal of items from the NFA. The free exercise of rights benefits everyone, but it appears there are some who don't want this to actually happen. I can only surmise their reasons.

Personally, I don't care if I spent $10k on tax stamps for SBRs or silencers. If there is is a chance to roll back even a fraction of the NFA, I am not going cry sour grapes because others in the future may not have to pay the fees I did. They are working tirelessly, giving up their time, donating money to cases and organizations. In the end they have probably spent more money than me for the benefit others, than I did on tax stamps for the benefit of myself.

No ones crying sour grapes or really giving a damn about money they spent on stamps, which in the case of anything but machineguns makes their guns worth less not more. Its just that all of this rollback stuff seems like it doesnt stand a snowballs chance in hell. A few internet lawyers making clickbait videos. If it happens great but it aint gonna happen. I see people holding off on buying silencers because they want to see what happens in congress with the HPA . Good F'in luck with that. As much as we'd all like the NFA to go away by some edict from on high it aint gonna happen. Thats just reality. Feeling some way about it and $4 will get you a cup of coffee.

As far as pistol braces goes what is the old adage that "Dont argue with someone who believes their own lies"? Theyre stocks. A way to do a workaround the NFA SBR thing. If it goes away fine and if and when that does happen I wont be rushing out to buy any of the ridiculous things. I'll just slap down another $200 on a stamp and register it. Seriously none of you guys gave a damn about the NFA when it wasn't your problem.