Well.. that just happened. ATF classification ruling that ArmBrace = SBR

[LRRPF52]

5th Circuit Issues Injunction on ATF Pistol Brace Ban

Minutes ago, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a preliminary injunction (download the PDF HERE) against the DOJ’s and ATF’s unconstitutional attack on firearms equipped with a pistol stabilizing brace. The lawsuit, brought by the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and other plaintiffs, paid off with this temporary injunction just days before ATF’s mandatory registration “grace period” that was set to expire on the 31st.

Don’t celebrate too soon, though! Unfortunately this temporary injunction applies only to the named plaintiffs . . . “…Preliminary Injunction Pending Appeal is GRANTED as to the Plaintiffs in this case.” It stays in effect — only for these plaintiffs — until an appeal in the case is ruled on. Stay tuned, because it’s at least a first real step and a first win, even if quite limited, in the right direction since the new ATF ruling was announced.

[grayfox]

FPC will seek clarity on who is covered, probably along the lines of equal protection, nationwide.
Or seek to amend the complaint to make it class action for all owners, maybe.
I was thinking that this week would be the week, since June 1 is coming up.

[lazyengineer]

That's a 3 panel appeals board. Which case under which judge, was being appealed?

[biodsl]

That's a 3 panel appeals board. Which case under which judge, was being appealed?

Mock v. Garland https://www.firearmspolicy.org/mock

[LRRPF52]

FPC will seek clarity on who is covered, probably along the lines of equal protection, nationwide.
Or seek to amend the complaint to make it class action for all owners, maybe.
I was thinking that this week would be the week, since June 1 is coming up.

27 States joined the lawsuit against DOJ/ATF, so I see it going the way of plaintiffs including those States and likely a default National scope, but I’m not a lawyer.

[LRRPF52]

Right now, it seems that there is ambiguity in who actually are the plaintiffs.

[video=youtube_share;whKiSOqbcPQ]https://youtu.be/whKiSOqbcPQ[/video]

[lazyengineer]

Mock v. Garland https://www.firearmspolicy.org/mock

Thanks, that's O'Connel's case. Which I thought was a slam-dunk, and was stunned when he denied the injunction. This is quite likely one of those cases where the judge is probably thrilled to be overruled. That said, this is going to take much more - and I have a doubt now we are going to get that; but it's a good start at least.

[LRRPF52]

If I recall, the FPC case didn’t emphasize the violation of Article I, Section 9 covering ex post facto laws (unconstitutional).

ATF is trying to act like they never sent determination letters, and just claiming they are enforcing Congress’s will regarding the NFA.

Director Dettlebach was very evasive and curated with how he dodged the fact that they issued numerous determination letters since 2012, or the fact that the Biden WH openly ordered ATF to crack down somehow on braced pistols.

This is the same kind of horse manure the Founders were subjected to under English colonial rule, where regional governors were shamelessly ignoring the law and violating the people, especially when it came to their rights to keep and bear arms.

[Zeneffect]

Are those tards actually wearing steel plates with hangar rings on them for body armor?

Yes. An actual purpose built target on their chest made from ar500 and water jet cut to 10" round specification with chain hangars. $15 says its branded caldwell.

[LRRPF52]

So now there are at least 2 preliminary injunctions and the 27 States demanding action from Speaker McCarthy.

[video=youtube_share;FXb9uVYSs6g]https://youtu.be/FXb9uVYSs6g[/video]

[Hansel&Grendel]

As Rep. Chip Roy tweeted after the in-principle budget "deal", the deal says nothing about the ATF Rule on stabilizing braces. Additionally, the (RINO) GOP talking points touting the deal say that it will "slash funding for Biden's new IRS agents"; however, the purported slashed funding applies only to FY 2023 with 98% remaining intact for the remaining FYs.
Imo, our Constitutional Republic ended when the Durham led federal grand jury criminal investigation issued a mere report but no criminal indictments. For a synopsis of the Durham report, here is an excellent summary:
https://omny.fm/shows/oconnor-and-compan...-interview

[grayfox]

GOA, GOF, STATE OF TEXAS SECURE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AGAINST BIDEN PISTOL BRACE BAN

GOA, GOF, State of Texas Secure Preliminary Injunction Against Biden Pistol Brace Ban | GOA (gunowners.org)

This injunction covers members of GOA, and agencies in state of Texas.
But it is one more injunction against the ATF instant-felon "rule."

[BjornF16]

So now there are at least 2 preliminary injunctions and the 27 States demanding action from Speaker McCarthy.

[video=youtube_share;FXb9uVYSs6g]https://youtu.be/FXb9uVYSs6g[/video]

Actually, now three injunctions: FPC, GOA, and SAF. All in Texas I believe

GOA: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/...race-rule/

SAF:https://www.ammoland.com/2023/06/judge-c...z83VEHlDYh

[LRRPF52]

Will be interesting to see how it moved forward since 27 States filed suit. I just came to post the 3rd injunction, which happened yesterday, but you guys covered it.

My body is ready for the new wave of brace designs...

[armyeod1952]

I have no faith in our political system anymore. I registered three items and now I have three ATF approved SBRs. The best estimates are that about 0.025 of the braced pistols were registered at this time. That leaves about 30 million felons.
Good luck with that.

[BjornF16]

When this stupid "rule" gets knocked down permanently, I wonder if they'll come looking for the $200 for each stamp they issued for free?...or will offer to "forget" that it was ever SBR'd?

[grayfox]

If it is struck down and part of the ruling is that it is unconstitutional to tax a "right", then refunds are in order.

[LRRPF52]

“This ATF rule is why so many Americans wonder how so many governmental officials in DC made it through the birth canal.”

[video=youtube_share;1qnZ_ZYvx_8]https://youtu.be/1qnZ_ZYvx_8[/video]

[jasper2408]

Jon Tester, who is a Democratic Senator from Montana, voted against stopping the ATF arm brace rule in a vote in the Senate. Below is his stance on Civil liberties straight from his webpage. I think I can safely assume that Jon didn't read his stance on civil liberties before he voted.

Jon believes strongly in protecting Montanans’ constitutional rights, including the right to bear arms and right to privacy. He has voted to protect Americans against all forms of federal government overreach that violate these precious Constitutional freedoms.

As a gun owner, Jon is a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. He has supported bipartisan legislation to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, terrorist, and those found by a judge to be a danger to themselves or others. He believes that we can keep our kids and communities safe without infringing on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners. That is why he has also consistently voted against any type of database or registry of gun owners, opposed legislation that would prevent an individual from purchasing or possessing firearms without meaningful due process, and broken with his own party to oppose banning assault weapons.

Jon is also a strong protector of the right to privacy and has voted to prevent the government from intruding into the lives of Americans. He has fought hard to oppose mass government surveillance programs and efforts to allow law enforcement to access American’s personal information in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Jon has also fought to protect a woman’s right to make her own private health care decisions, and to keep politicians from telling Montanans how to live their lives.

Lastly, Jon has worked hard to ensure that no American is discriminated against because of who they are or where they live. He is a cosponsor of the Equality Act, which would defend any Montanan from discrimination in core areas of everyday life including education, housing, and the use of taxpayer dollars.

EDIT: I started out looking for what Tester said or did about the Montana gun shop raid and came upon this info. I couldn't find that he said or did anything about the gun shop raid. If it is out there I didn't find it.

[montana]

Jon Tester, who is a Democratic Senator from Montana, voted against stopping the ATF arm brace rule in a vote in the Senate. Below is his stance on Civil liberties straight from his webpage. I think I can safely assume that Jon didn't read his stance on civil liberties before he voted.



EDIT: I started out looking for what Tester said or did about the Montana gun shop raid and came upon this info. I couldn't find that he said or did anything about the gun shop raid. If it is out there I didn't find it.

Tester is a leftist and is not a friend of the 2ndA..He plays the part of a gun rights champion when nearing his election time. He just voted against the forearm brace revision which shows his true allegiance to his communist masters in D.C. and may have sealed his doom in the next election.. I say may have, as Montana has been discovered and hoards of weirdo out of state leftist have poured into our once great state.. At this time, if a representative has a D in front of their name you can take it to the bank they are anti-gun..