National Pistol Brace rule Dropped!

[GrayGoose]

I don't like most dogs all that much... Mostly cuz the ones that are around me are loud and bark all the goddamned time. I blame their 2-legged idiots for that.

My cat, OTOH, is so simple to take care of when I leave town. I can lock her in the house for a weekend+ with just some big bowls of food and water and a clean litterbox, and she could care less that I'm gone for 2 or 3 days. Of course, I get to hear all about it from her when I eventually get back, so there's that...

View attachment 1430718 View attachment 1430719

Agreed. A dog is worse than a kid when it comes to going on a vacation.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Suddenly someone is a complete traitor to the cause because they did something you didn't like, despite all of the things they did that we all liked.

Where did you get to "trator" when all @ilikegunspdx really said was that the info from The Wash Gun Guy was irrelevant immaterial and incompetent

And which of you read that last bit in Raymond Bures voice?

 

[Rkangel]

I doubt the ATF is going to check to see if you are a member of the GOA/FPC, and if I am not mistaken, at least one of those lawsuits is not in the ninth district? Either way, it won't keep them from shooting your dog.

Maybe we need FPC and GOA patches and panels for our plate carriers, just in case,

 

[ilikegunspdx]

I'm very supportive of attorneys that are effective. The recent GOA, FPC, and SAF injunctions are examples. Those are the folks where my money goes to. I am critical of the amateurs that often appear to do more harm than good. For example OFF who hired a pedophile specialist to represent them in the m114 injunction. Then got into a public squabble with that bottom feeder lawyer over 66,000. Then later made claims in court about the united nations being involved, prompting the judge to write a scathing rebuke. These types of idiotic actions reflect badly on all of us and move us backward in the fight. You just don't see these kind of mistakes from players that know what they are doing. I stand behind my comments about how serranto and his buddy have screwed up that particular hb1240 injunction attempt. They are highly paid and are supposed to have specialized knowledge and expertise, yet are making rookie mistakes, catastrophic mistakes in terms of defeating hb1240 in the short term (injunction).

Re the video, as I said I don't question that video's accuracy, only that guy's judgement and a general feeling that I don't trust it. There are several other examples I won't get into where he was incorrect and just stuck to that no matter what despite other attorneys saying the opposite and atf's own documents refuting what he said.

 

[eustace_stelio]

I don't like most dogs all that much... Mostly cuz the ones that are around me are loud and bark all the goddamned time. I blame their 2-legged idiots for that.

My cat, OTOH, is so simple to take care of when I leave town. I can lock her in the house for a weekend+ with just some big bowls of food and water and a clean litterbox, and she could care less that I'm gone for 2 or 3 days. Of course, I get to hear all about it from her when I eventually get back, so there's that...

View attachment 1430718 View attachment 1430719

 

[Yarome]

I put very little in stock in that guy's opinion now. He and serranto made the rookie mistake of not getting clients in grant county to keep it there so now the hb1240 injunction effort is moved to a county where it is all but a certainty they will lose. Acts very confident and says he is 100% right even when he is wrong. He and his buddy serranto made a rookie mistake that could/has make the difference between WA residents getting hb1240 enjoined or not. Im not saying he is wrong in this video, just that I don't trust his judgement very much.

If GOA had made that rookie mistake in Harney County then OR m114 would have went into full effect on dec. 8, 2023. That's really an unforgivable mistake by "experts" that are extremely highly paid to know better. Gun law guy and serranto said they were "surprised" at the judges ruling. As Col Jeff Cooper said, "you can be forgiven for being beaten, but never for being surprised". I.e. they did inadequate preparation and weren't ready for this most basic move by the state to win. Now they will lose almost certainly and so will WA state residents. Fortunately they are not the only active injunction effort in WA.

That's not entirely accurate. They had clients, but the state argued they had no standing in Grant county since they had not experienced/demonstrated sufficient "harm". Bogus argument... but the judge went along with the states petition, anyway.

Getting shafted by the state and legal system doesn't necessarily mean the attorneys involved were complete incompetents.

 

[Yarome]

He gave a conservative view of the FPC injunction because lawyers are supposed to lean on the side of "don't get the client thrown in jail". The clarification by the court was still a bit murkey and he wouldn't want to give people advice that could result in them facing a felony. Now with multiple courts having similar interpretations of the injunction and referencing it as such, he feels more confident in the legal protections it offers. That sounds like him being a good lawyer and not jumping on the celebratory bandwagon until some of those doubts were addressed.

That's how I read it too. While the majority were jumping on the "you're covered because FPC says you are" bandwagon, he remained reserved. With the additional cases coming out he's now more confident we really may be. Sounds like good lawyering to me.

The bottom line though is that all of them combined don't actually "know" if a person is protected or not until it's challenged in a court of law. It's all just educated guesses and assumptions that may or may not actually be upheld as valid arguments before a judge.

I kind of look at it as... they are all worthwhile organizations worthy of our support. If there is some additional benefits that may apply to a person then great, but if it doesn't play out that way... that wouldn't surprise me either.

For those that may be relying on those injunctive protections... I have a suspicion that they had already been leaning toward non-compliance so any additional potential protections is really just icing on the cake. In reality, I highly doubt many will ever have to find out if it's a valid legal standing or not and wouldn't surprise me if we never find out the answer to that question. YMMV

 

[ilikegunspdx]

That's not entirely accurate. They had clients, but the state argued they had no standing in Grant county since they had not experienced/demonstrated sufficient "harm". Bogus argument... but the judge went along with the states petition, anyway.

Getting shafted by the state and legal system doesn't necessarily mean the attorneys involved were complete incompetents.

Yes they failed to show grant county plaintiffs were "harmed" unlike most other ones where businesses, individuals, and organizations were included for just that reason. Why did they bother all the videos at the grant county courthouse and file there if there were not prepared to keep it there. Rookie mistake that may make the difference between winning or losing the injunction imo.

 

[Yarome]

Yes they failed to show grant county plaintiffs were "harmed" unlike most other ones where businesses, individuals, and organizations were included for just that reason. Why did they bother all the videos at the grant county courthouse and file there if there were not prepared to keep it there. Rookie mistake that may make the difference between winning or losing the injunction imo.

Ummm... that's what I was saying. If you read the filing there WERE several individuals included "..for just that reason". Just like many other similar cases and a prerequisite for them to file in any given county in the first place. They can't just pick a random county to file in without resident plaintiffs.

The problem is that the state claimed they could not demonstrate actual harm... which is BS. A right denied in and of itself has many times been ruled as "irreparable harm", however, the state argued (as we often see) that because there has been no "actual" damages then "harm" has not occurred.. therefore no standing... and the judge that heard their petition ruled in their favor.

How does any attorney prevail over an incompetent judge? It may have just as easily have been that the judge in question simply didn't want to deal with a case of that magnitude and ruled himself a way out(?)

I get it. You have a personal bug against the guy, but they did the same thing as many others and a far cry better than our own homegrown efforts in OR.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Ummm... that's what I was saying. If you read the filing there WERE several individuals included "..for just that reason". Just like many other similar cases and a prerequisite for them to file in any given county in the first place. They can't just pick a random county to file in without resident plaintiffs.

The problem is that the state claimed they could not demonstrate actual harm... which is BS. A right denied in and of itself has many times been ruled as "irreparable harm", however, the state argued (as we often see) that because there has been no "actual" damages then "harm" has not occurred.. therefore no standing... and the judge that heard their petition ruled in their favor.

How does any attorney prevail over an incompetent judge? It may have just as easily have been that the judge in question simply didn't want to deal with a case of that magnitude and ruled himself a way out(?)

I get it. You have a personal bug against the guy, but they did the same thing as many others and a far cry better than our own homegrown efforts in OR.

Have to agree to disagree I guess. The many other injunctions did not fall for similar ploys by the state either due to named plaintiffs or due to inadequately arguing that any loss of 2A rights even for a day constitutes irreparable harm. You can defend him and serranto all you want but they made a rookie mistake that shouldn't have been made and it might cost WA gun owners the difference of having their guns banned etc or not.

 

[Yarome]

Have to agree to disagree I guess. The many other injunctions did not fall for similar ploys by the state either due to named plaintiffs or due to inadequately arguing that any loss of 2A rights even for a day constitutes irreparable harm. You can defend him and serranto all you want but they made a rookie mistake that shouldn't have been made and it might cost WA gun owners the difference of having their guns banned etc or not.

So what you're saying is that if a judge does not rule in favor of the pro 2A plaintiffs, that means the plaintiffs must be incompetent? I don't believe they anticipated that a judge would agree with the "no actual injury (yet)" argument over the well established "a right denied" and "actual injury will occur" [in the case of the Grant County FFL plaintiff] arguments.

But... fair enough. Agree to disagree.

 

[Stomper]

Agreed. A dog is worse than a kid when it comes to going on a vacation.

Yeah, no schit on that! We're fixing on doing a road-trip to Vancouver Island, BC and bringing our two mutts…. the amount of supporting accoutrements required is worse than packing for young kids!


At least they don't bicker in the back-seat the entire time……

 

[ilikegunspdx]

So what you're saying is that if a judge does not rule in favor of the pro 2A plaintiffs, that means the plaintiffs must be incompetent? I don't believe they anticipated that a judge would agree with the "no actual injury (yet)" argument over the well established "a right denied" and "actual injury will occur" [in the case of the Grant County FFL plaintiff] arguments.

But... fair enough. Agree to disagree.

Having a business with direct injury as a plaintiff just like most of the other suits have would have shown this easily. Again poor planning/lack of competence equals a surprise for them and likely a lost case, to the detriment of WA gun owners. These cases should be left to those that know what they are doing Imo. The stakes are too high.

 

[Yarome]

Having a business with direct injury as a plaintiff just like most of the other suits have would have shown this easily. Again poor planning/lack of competence equals a surprise for them and likely a lost case, to the detriment of WA gun owners. These cases should be left to those that know what they are doing Imo. The stakes are too high.

So... you mean like the FFL with a local gun shop there in Grant County... Guardian Arms in Moses Lake... that was a plaintiff in the case??

Yeah... exactly.... DID that! The state basically contended that since the ink was still wet with the governors signature that the plaintiffs had yet to sustain demonstrable damages.

I guess it would have been more savvy of the attorneys to wait, have the FFL sell some banned firearms and get arrested before filing?

They pretty much did exactly as a multitude of other lawsuits across the country. That doesn't, however, stop a judge from ruling however he sees fit and leave the plaintiffs to contend with the aftermath.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

So... you mean like the FFL with a local gun shop there in Grant County... Guardian Arms in Moses Lake... that was a plaintiff in the case??

Yeah... exactly.... DID that! The state basically contended that since the ink was still wet with the governors signature that the plaintiffs had yet to sustain demonstrable damages.

I guess it would have been more savvy of the attorneys to wait, have the FFL sell some banned firearms and get arrested before filing?

They pretty much did exactly as a multitude of other lawsuits across the country. That doesn't, however, stop a judge from ruling however he sees fit and leave the plaintiffs to contend with the aftermath.

They always try to get to a more favorable court and it's almost always easily shot down. Serranto and friends failed to do that unlike the 3 injunctions for brace rule, GOA's injunction for m114 and a gazillion other cases. They prevent it easily and serranto did not. That's on them not on the court. They chose grant county for a reason just like Goa chose Harney county. pompous guy was parading in front of the grant county courthouse on more than one video "I'm on the steps of grant county courthouse we're waiting to file...". Why did they choose grant county if they think the judge is so biased as to side with the state despite tons of other lawsuits easily preventing a change to a more favorable location/court. They drove a long ways to choose exactly that court. Either way their failure is on them whether choosing the wrong location (Ephrata), failure to show harm, not having the correct plaintiffs it's on them. It's amateur hour compared to the professionals with a much longer track record and experience. To be successful it needs to be done by the pros who know how to do it.

 

[MTpockets]

Taken off the Calendar...per Rep.Clyde

H.J.Res.44 - Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives relating to "Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached 'Stabilizing Braces'"

Reps. Clyde and Hudson Introduce Resolution to Repeal ATF's Unconstitutional Pistol Brace Rule

clyde.house.gov

https://files.constantcontact.com/647991c4801/381dafde-f0b7-45c5-bf44-3f46a697bf8c.pdf?rdr=true

Federal Register :: Request Access

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-joint-resolution/44?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%22brace%22%7D&s=3&r=1

 

[E4mafia]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1664735794827870210

ATF Says a Quarter Million Guns Registered Under Pistol-Brace Ban

Only a fraction of the guns affected by the ATF’s new rule were registered with the agency during the four-month grace period that ended this week.

thereload.com

 

[CamoDeafie]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1664735794827870210

ATF Says a Quarter Million Guns Registered Under Pistol-Brace Ban

Only a fraction of the guns affected by the ATF’s new rule were registered with the agency during the four-month grace period that ended this week.

thereload.com

250,000 out of "3-7 million estimated " and "10-40 million " estimates... quite a low number; not a surprise considering that there's these other options to "comply" without involving the ATF...

Put 16"+ barrel on braced firearm (Thompson Center Arms kit style)

Remove brace permanently; likely either just swap tubes and keep separate or take a saw to brace itself, alternatively, sell brace..


I'm sure that these are the majority of the "compliance" achieved as braces being considered stocks are now basically pointless if they'll be treated the same as rifle stocks

 

[bradsteen]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1664735794827870210

ATF Says a Quarter Million Guns Registered Under Pistol-Brace Ban

Only a fraction of the guns affected by the ATF’s new rule were registered with the agency during the four-month grace period that ended this week.

thereload.com

So they have a ~1% compliance rate. Gold star for the ATF!

 

[E4mafia]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1664751890339356674

Wonder how much this applies...