Pistol Brace Update, from 7 Jun 21

[98Z5V]

The Mock v Garland hearing did happen today in 5th Circuit.  Decision isn't published yet.  On the official 5th Circuit website, the latest updates are from 28 June.  We'll see what happens.

Here's a rundown on the hearing today.

 

Edited June 30, 2023 by 98Z5V

[98Z5V]

Here something that DID happen yesterday, 30 Jun.  Frame and Receiver Final Rule = VACATED.

This is what's coming for the BATFE, and their Pistol Brace Final Rule.  No other way around it.

 

Also, the US Supreme Court has agreed to take up the Rahimi case, in their next session.  This will be a good one.

 

[jim3326]

This is some great news! Thanks for posting.

[98Z5V]

4 hours ago, jim3326 said:

This is some great news! Thanks for posting.

There's more, brother.  I'm on this BS like that fat kid and the cupcake.

Here's another opinion:

 

That Rahimi case - if you guys want to talk about that, I can go into that in great depth.  Just do research first, after you all look it up.  You need to know the difference between the Lautenberg Amendment, and the Brady Act.  There's a very, very distinct difference between those two, and that's what the Rahimi case is about.

The MSM isn't going to tell you the difference - they're gonna treat you like a mushroom.  Keep you in the dark, and feed you bullshiit... 

[98Z5V]

So, the NRA has been shut out.  They filed to have NRA members included in these cases, and the NRA has been denied.

Once they saw the first case, 5th Circuit and FPC decision.  FPC asked for clarification to the judge, and the judge clarified that the "plaintiffs" in the case actually DID include all FPC members.  Glad I'm a member of FPC.

The following cases followed that pattern, and members of those organizations were included in the injunctions against the BATFE. 

Now, NRA was never specifically named as a plaintiff in any suit, but they provided a BUNCH of money in the SAF lawsuit.  SAF is specifically named, they brought the suit, NRA backed them with a dufflebag full of money, but NRA didn't initially name themselves in the suit.

Now, the only one left that hasn't been decided is the FRAC suit.  NRA is backing that one with another dufflebag full of money.  FRAC is a plaintiff, NRA was not initially named as a plaintiff. NRA filed to have themselves included in the FRAC suit, and has been shut out. 

NRA members are not covered in any preliminary injunctions.  FPC, SAF, GOA members - are covered in these injunctions. FRAC, still undecided, but NRA members will not be included, however that decision goes.

Here's the rundown:

 

[98Z5V]

^^^ In reference to that - talk about Ironic...

TODAY, July 3rd, the NRA filed direct suit against the Biden Administration over the pistol brace rule.

You can read about it on the NRA website, but you have to go through an age-verification check.  Also, directly inside that MRA article, it links you to this Fox News article:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/nra-slaps-biden-admin-lawsuit-unlawful-pistol-brace-rule

Published July 3, 2023 4:43pm EDT

NRA slaps Biden admin with lawsuit over 'unlawful' pistol brace rule

ATF's pistol brace rule has been in the crosshairs of Republicans, gun-rights groups since January

FIRST ON FOX – The National Rifle Association of America slapped the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives with a lawsuit over a rule that regulates stabilizing braces for pistols.

In a lawsuit filed Monday, the NRA aims to expose "the failings of the new rule – which subjects law-abiding gun owners to penalties, fines, and potential prison sentences for the use of an otherwise legal plastic apparatus on some firearms."

"The NRA has ramped up its offense on this arbitrary and unconstitutional rule," NRA Executive Vice President & CEO Wayne LaPierre said. "We are confident in our ability to confront the ATF and [the Department of Justice] – and preserve freedom for NRA members."

The NRA previously submitted comments in opposition to the rule, filed a motion to intervene in another legal action and supported a lawsuit by several state attorneys general filed in North Dakota. 

Pistol braces are accessories that can be attached to the rear of a gun to make it easier to aim and fire with one hand. The accessories are often used by disabled veterans. 

The ATF rule categorizes pistols with braces as short-barreled rifles, which require a federal license to own.

NRA argues in its complaint that the rule is unconstitutional, as the ATF reverses its long-standing position that pistol braces do not transform pistols into rifles subject to onerous registration and taxation requirements under the National Firearms Act.

The NRA is asking a district court in Texas for a preliminary, and ultimately permanent, injunctive relief restraining ATF from enforcing the rule against law-abiding NRA members. ATF Director Steven Dettelbach and U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland are also named defendants in the lawsuit.

First announced in January 2023, the final rule was set to go into effect June 1, 2023. Gun rights groups and the state of Texas sued the government and have now been granted preliminary injunctive relief from that final rule. The NRA now seeks "recognition of the irreparable harm its members also face" from the rule. The NRA has approximately 350,000 members in Texas.

According to the complaint, many NRA members are being irreparably harmed by the final rule because they are forced to modify their firearms, destroy them, register them or surrender them to the federal government under threat of criminal prosecution.

"The NRA is pursuing every possible avenue in defense of its law-abiding members and their constitutional freedoms," said William A. Brewer III, counsel to the NRA. "Our members should be free of the threat of enforcement of this presumptively unlawful rule. We are confident that we will prevail in obtaining the same relief for them that has already been granted to members of other gun rights groups."

In June, House Republicans, with the help of two Democrats, passed a resolution that would nullify ATF's final rule and prevent the ATF from reintroducing the same rule in the future. 

The resolution is now headed to the Senate. If passed by the Senate – an unlikely scenario given the political makeup – and subsequently vetoed by Biden, the House and Senate would need a two-thirds majority vote to override the presidential veto. 

The ATF declined to comment on pending litigation.

[98Z5V]

This is great news - Today.  1 Aug 2023.  UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Here's the article - the only one I can find right now...

https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-pistol-brace-rule-likely-illegal-federal-appeals-court-rules-2023-08-01/

Here's the only video I can find on this right now - but it'll be MAJOR news from all the 2A YT guys tomorrow, for sure...

 

[98Z5V]

Oopsie!  Guns & Gadgets, Jared, is on it, too.  Just found this one in a direct search:

 

[DNP]

Now if they’d just be honest. They’re upset that the pistol brace somehow works around the unconstitutional SBR laws. Let’s just get rid of it all and be done with the nonsense. Sorry. Soapbox and choir, I know. 

[98Z5V]

Indeed, that's what's pissing them off - well, pissing Slo-Joe off.  If it's not directly in the NFA 1934 or the GCA 1968, then it has to originate from CONGRESS...  and become another NEW law, the right way.  All this "rule making" bullsheiit is illegal, and it's Unconstitutional.  Bottom line. 

P.S.  We can lump FOPA 1986 into that list of rules, because that was the big one that stopped true automatic weapons manufacture, from it's enactment, forward.  It certainly wasn't any kind of "Firearms Owners Protection Act," like the name eluded to.  It only modified certain parts of the GCA 1968. 

[98Z5V]

Finding more out there on this...  Tom Grieve.  He's one of the good ones. 

 

[98Z5V]

This is gonna get spicey.  There's been alot of very good informational vids in the past 2 days, but they all basically say the same thing, in slightly different words.  I didn't feel like clogging up this thread posting all of them, but I can if someone wants to see them.  I have them all bookmarked.

This is good information, with different explanation.  This is worth watching, during this complete legal shiitshow.

 

[98Z5V]

This is "Frames and Receivers," but BATFE is on the ropes right now.  Getting punched my Mike Tyson.

 

Everything they're selling right now, is falling apart. 

W.Va vs. EPA is coming back, and smacking this agency right on their ass.  Like a pissed off mother smacking a bad child.

Am I allowed to say that in today's world?  Life would be better, if that happened more - when they were young, and could still learn.  I'm just sayin'.....  

[98Z5V]

Remember this testimony...

 

[98Z5V]

Information everywhere, but this one is too good to pass up - this needs posted here...

 

[98Z5V]

Great explanation of why this drama is going the way it is...

 

[98Z5V]

Here's where it's at now.  This is going well, unless you're BATFE.  This will stop this agency's over-reach, right here.  They'll lose, and they'll elevate it back up, and it will be catastrophic for them...   My thoughts...

 

[98Z5V]

He CRUSHED it.  Completely.

 

[98Z5V]

Good update:

 

[Traveler]

Good to see things going the way they should. Too bad there has to be such a Phuckin' mess about it.

[98Z5V]

On 7/1/2023 at 8:00 PM, 98Z5V said:

That Rahimi case - if you guys want to talk about that, I can go into that in great depth.  Just do research first, after you all look it up.  You need to know the difference between the Lautenberg Amendment, and the Brady Act.  There's a very, very distinct difference between those two, and that's what the Rahimi case is about.

The MSM isn't going to tell you the difference - they're gonna treat you like a mushroom.  Keep you in the dark, and feed you bullshiit... 

Here it comes...   This breaks it down, pretty clearly.  There is a distinct difference between Lautenberg (convicted of a minimum of Misdemeanor Domestic Violence - lose your gun rights forever), and the difference between Brady (accused of whatever bullshiit that someone can invent, in order to get a Restraining Order through the court). 

See the difference there?  Never been arrested, charged, tried, or convicted of ANYTHING...  Simply "accused" of something, with a ZERO TRIAL or guilt conviction.  None.

Judge bought the bullshiit, though...  and now you're fuqd. 

That's the difference in Lautenberg (yeah, the court found you guilty) and Brady (pissed off partner accused you of something).

This breaks it down. 

 

Now, Rahimi was a true piece of shiit.  He really was.  But this is only about ONE CHARGE that he had, that was tacked onto something else.  That shiit snow-balled.  That dude ain't innocent of all the other shiit that he did, by far, hell no.  But that restraining order that had no force of the court (it's civil, NOT criminal), was something that was tacked on, and elevated the further charges/convictions that he did get...

Again, he's not a good guy.  He's bad.  But this is one thing that a very ballsy attorney argued, and won in 5th Circuit.  And the 5th Circuit is correct on that decision they made. 

Edited August 29, 2023 by 98Z5V

[98Z5V]

Here it comes...

 

[98Z5V]

5th Circuit has Layed The Smacketh DOWN! 

Damn good update.

 

 

 

Edited October 4, 2023 by 98Z5V

[98Z5V]

Around 24:00 minutes into the Guns & Gadgets vid, a bomshell was dropped.  Check that one out again...

I posted those vids on what I think is the information content, best to good.  Because none of them suck.  That's just how I thought the information was presented, and it was from the legal standpoint.  Tom Grieve crushed it. 

[98Z5V]

Here's another perspective...