BREAKING - PISTOL BRACE “ATF “rule” INJUNCTION - NATIONWIDE!

73Chall

73Chall

Happy to be here
Joined
Jan 19, 2017
Messages
1,731
Location
Western Carolina
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
BOOM!

FEDERAL JUDGE STAYS THE ATF RULE “IN IT’s ENTIRETY!!!!!!!!!”

0:00 - "Stays the rule in its entirety."
1:54 - Administrative Procedures Act
5:27 - Common Use
9:49 - Why not 2nd Amendment Based?
12:35 - What happens next? Appeal?
15:41 - Supreme Court Discussion
17:37 - Quote of the Day

 
Last edited:
Planet24 said:
I didnt see where it was nationwide for every person. Wouldnt this only apply to the plaintiff?
Click to expand...
Combat Diver said:
ATF will appeal this to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. Issue is the 5th already ruled and sent back down to Judge. Highly unlikely the 5th will over turn its ruling.
Click to expand...

This is a ruling in Britto v. BATFE (Judge Kacsmaryk's court), which is a different lawsuit from Mock v. Garland (Judge O'Connor's court) that has received much more attention.

Mock has been back and forth between O'Connor's court and the 5th Circuit. The most recent action was a preliminary injunction issued 10/2/2023 against the government enforcing the brace rule against named plaintiffs (including members of plaintiff organizations).

Kacsmaryk had previously issued a preliminary injunction on 5/31/2023 against enforcement of the brace rule against named plaintiffs in the Britto case; that ruling was issued pending the 5th Circuit's resolution of the Mock case.

Kacsmaryk's current ruling builds from the 5th Circuit's Mock ruling and is a revised preliminary injunction issued 11/8/2023 that stays the BATFE from enforcing the brace rule "in its entirety." The current injunction is not limited to named parties and prohibits the BATFE from enforcing the rule at all.

AFT will appeal the Britto injunction to the 5th Circuit. The 5th Circuit previously declined to determine the appropriateness of a nationwide injunction in the Mock case because the District Court had not, at the time of their review, looked at all factors necessary to make a determination. Kacsmaryk appears to have addressed the factors necessary for the 5th Circuit to determine whether his nationwide injunction is appropriate in the Britto case.
 
Last edited:
C-doodle said:
Looking an awful lot like everybody is good to keep running braces for awhile.

I know a lot of people took them off. Pretty sure almost nobody actually got rid of them.
Click to expand...
I gave all mine to a noguns friend as modern art pieces, but she might not have room to store them anymore though. Guess that guy with the full price brace in the bst might get what he wants for it lol
 
It was struck down based on the Administrative Procedures Act, not 2A concerns. The proposed rule had that Form 4499 point system, but the final rule didn’t and was too different from version proposed in the comment period. So they could reissue the rule change again, correctly this time, and then we’d have to fight it all over again.

In the meantime, I’m having a blast with my first SBR that didn’t cost me $200 to register it.
 
Combat Diver said:
Don't know if they can reissue the rule. Judgement stated ATF can NOT make law. It'll have to come from Congress.
Click to expand...
This anti-gun ATF has been so active that it’s difficult to keep track of all the lawsuits. I went back and listened to Washington Gun Law again to make sure I didn’t have it confused with something else. But If we’re talking about Brito v ATF, then the 5th Circuit just issued a nationwide injunction against the pistol brace rule based on APA, stating it fails the “logical outgrowth test” (the 4499 thing).



Also this week, the frames and receivers rule was struck down based on ATF overreach, trying to rewrite the law. That was really more about separation of powers than 2A as well, which is what you were asserting, but it does address a Constitutional concern rather than how the rule was implemented.

 
MadMardigan said:


SBRs could be taken down using the ATF rules against themselves.
Click to expand...

This would be amazing. The whole NFA/hughes amendment should be abolished but this is a step in the right direction. SBR/SBS laws are incredibly stupid and based on provisions trying to ban handguns that never made it into the GCA when it was passed.
 
Get Off My Lawn said:
Now what about Drumph’s unconstitutional, illegal bump stock ban?
Click to expand...
That's going to the Supreme court...

Supreme Court agrees to hear case over ban on bump stocks...

Washington — The Supreme Court on Friday said it will consider a challenge to a Trump-era regulation that bans so-called "bump stocks," a firearms modification that increases the rate of fire of semi-automatic rifles. In a brief unsigned order, the court agreed to decide the case, known as...
carolinafirearmsforum.com
 
Last edited:
Armed4defense said:
It was ALL about data collection. They probably knew it would come to this. I doubt ATF is destroying any records.
Click to expand...

Hopefully they got a picture of how noncompliant 80% of us will be.
 
Wow... I am going to try to keep my thoughts straight, but we are talking ATF so it is muddy mess:
- Remember how Roe was overturned, and RGB had said fairly recently that the case was judicially a "total stretch"
- Boom, when some case made it's way up to SCOTUS, the judicial stretch that was considered and was overturned
- Considering that the judge ruled ATF cannot make law, that is for Congress, may be a similar outcome to Roe
- Imagine all the rules the ATF has enacted or pushed into Law totally going away
- This is just my first pass at thinking of this, I am not a lawyer, just wondering how good this could be over time
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom