ATF Federal Brace Injunction

Xcerebus1

Xcerebus1

NES Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
14
Likes
8
Location
Wakefield Massachusetts
Feedback: 2 / 0 / 0
The ATF has been hit with an injunction in Federal Court over enforcing their brace regulation.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_4439.PNG
    IMG_4439.PNG
    76.7 KB · Views: 35
  • IMG_4440.PNG
    IMG_4440.PNG
    91.5 KB · Views: 33
  • IMG_4441.PNG
    IMG_4441.PNG
    30.5 KB · Views: 33
Drix said:
This really bothers me- why?

Why is it only the people suing the state get to keep their rights until the legality clears up?
Click to expand...
The injunction includes everyone within the circuit where it's filed. That it doesn't extend further is basically "States' Rights" in action.

It also includes anyone who is in the party that brought the suit but are outside that circuit. That's basically a bonus.
 
Mesatchornug said:
The injunction includes everyone within the circuit where it's filed. That it doesn't extend further is basically "States' Rights" in action.

It also includes anyone who is in the party that brought the suit but are outside that circuit. That's basically a bonus.
Click to expand...
I guess I'd think as a federal ban it should ve a federal injunction.
 
VTski4x4 said:
GOA and FPC also were granted injunctions, including their members. If you've been contributing to the fight, you're safe, for now. It shouldn't be this way though.
Click to expand...
I officially joined both orgs recently. I got the message from FPC about being covered by their injunction. :D I plan to continue to support both orgs but I'll let the NRA membership die instead of renewing it when it comes time.

I had FPC listed as my charity when Amazon Smile was still alive. So they got a decent amount of $$ from me that way over time.
 
VTski4x4 said:
GOA and FPC also were granted injunctions, including their members. If you've been contributing to the fight, you're safe, for now. It shouldn't be this way though.
Click to expand...

I'm staying away from GOA after they supported and then continued to support anti 2A legislation in NH.

While they have attempted to fix their organization, and an individual is no longer employed by them, there is still no NH representative at GOA.

I also believe they chimed in on only one of about 10 anti 2A bills in NH. I don't even think they submitted remote testimony-just sent one of their dumb spam emails.

What would GOA do for me in my state? Jack and shit right now. I would love to see them change so I could support them.

I'll support the locals as they are the ones trying to do things that no bullshit affect me in my state.

Federally I don't care much. I have braces, I forgot how many, but federally I just don't care much.

Also haven't shot a rifle since maybe 2013 so their is that.o_O
 
Don't know how well this would go over when the local Stormtroopers come to visit?

We've been receiving many anxious questions from supporters wanting to make sure they are now FPC members.

That's why we're sending you this email as confirmation that you are a current member of the FPC Grassroots Army.
According to the Judge in our pistol brace lawsuit, FPC members are covered by the injunction.

Should you have any questions, please contact our customer support team at [email protected].

Also, please remember to encourage your friends and family to join as well at JoinFPC.org.

Stay Free,

Firearms Policy Coalition
 
akma said:
Don't know how well this would go over when the local Stormtroopers come to visit?

We've been receiving many anxious questions from supporters wanting to make sure they are now FPC members.

That's why we're sending you this email as confirmation that you are a current member of the FPC Grassroots Army.
According to the Judge in our pistol brace lawsuit, FPC members are covered by the injunction.

Should you have any questions, please contact our customer support team at [email protected].

Also, please remember to encourage your friends and family to join as well at JoinFPC.org.

Stay Free,

Firearms Policy Coalition
Click to expand...
They will say, "we'll let the courts determine whether or not the injunction applies to you." Meanwhile your shit is confiscated and you are arrested and charged with federal felonies.
 
Mesatchornug said:
This week's Fudd Busters starts with a discussion of just this

View: https://youtu.be/iMiqw3RG41I
Click to expand...

I mean, I get it from a legal standpoint, I just don't get it from a practical and philosophical one.

The ATF is creating a rule that effects all Americans, but only the Americans who sue technically get relief while the suit is processed.
I get that there's court rings and wotnot, but if this were a civil rights case like "separate is equal" there's no way in hell anyone would let anyone get away with this.
No judge is going to sit there and say "these people over here are more equal than that pool over there".

This isn't a state or district rule, it's federal, and it should require a federal injunction to stop.
I get it, someone decided to let the legal system work that way a'la California firearms "Interest balancing" tests.
This doesn't make sense, and it's not right, if there's enough of a concern to put an injunction in place, it should apply to the scope of the application of the rule.
The ATF rule doesn't stipulate that members of certain groups are effected first or more than others, so the relief shouldn't either.
 
hunt4riches said:
They will say, "we'll let the courts determine whether or not the injunction applies to you." Meanwhile your shit is confiscated and you are arrested and charged with federal felonies.
Click to expand...
Don’t get arrested, problem solved.
 
Drix said:
I mean, I get it from a legal standpoint, I just don't get it from a practical and philosophical one.

The ATF is creating a rule that effects all Americans, but only the Americans who sue technically get relief while the suit is processed.
I get that there's court rings and wotnot, but if this were a civil rights case like "separate is equal" there's no way in hell anyone would let anyone get away with this.
No judge is going to sit there and say "these people over here are more equal than that pool over there".

This isn't a state or district rule, it's federal, and it should require a federal injunction to stop.
I get it, someone decided to let the legal system work that way a'la California firearms "Interest balancing" tests.
This doesn't make sense, and it's not right, if there's enough of a concern to put an injunction in place, it should apply to the scope of the application of the rule.
The ATF rule doesn't stipulate that members of certain groups are effected first or more than others, so the relief shouldn't either.
Click to expand...
This IS a civil rights case!!!!

By definition, the bill of rights (the first 10 original amendments) are ‘civil rights’. By denotation…..I’m sure they want to revisionist history this too….
 
Drix said:
I mean, I get it from a legal standpoint, I just don't get it from a practical and philosophical one.

The ATF is creating a rule that effects all Americans, but only the Americans who sue technically get relief while the suit is processed.
I get that there's court rings and wotnot, but if this were a civil rights case like "separate is equal" there's no way in hell anyone would let anyone get away with this.
No judge is going to sit there and say "these people over here are more equal than that pool over there".

This isn't a state or district rule, it's federal, and it should require a federal injunction to stop.
I get it, someone decided to let the legal system work that way a'la California firearms "Interest balancing" tests.
This doesn't make sense, and it's not right, if there's enough of a concern to put an injunction in place, it should apply to the scope of the application of the rule.
The ATF rule doesn't stipulate that members of certain groups are effected first or more than others, so the relief shouldn't either.
Click to expand...

Good news, the following is pulled from an email they just sent:
FPC said:
Which brings us to our second bit of news: we just filed our opening brief in FPC's pistol brace case Mock v. Garland. You can read it here.

FPC is not merely content with the injunction covering our members; we're fighting to DEFEAT the rule in its entirety.
Click to expand...
 
PappyM3 said:
The judge had some great things to say.
Click to expand...
Judge Reed O’Connor definitely dropkicked the door wide open to kill NFA /SBRs with “common use” and also by saying that “it is lawful to take a lawfully-owned pistol and modify it by attaching A BRACE OR STOCK TO THE LAWFULLY OWNED PISTOL so as to render it and the user to be safer, more proficient, more comfortable, more controllable and more accurate, in increasing one’s self-defense capabilities as well as limiting or reducing the possibility of others shot or killed accidentally/unintentionally. It’s absurd for the DOJ/ATF to consider it unlawful to modify a pistol in a way that it’s safer, more accurate and more controllable for the user and safer to bystanders. The ATF’s own language shows these pistols are objectively in common use, a standard so forth set in DC vs Heller and reaffirmed in NY vs Bruen.” Awesome argument.
 
Last edited:
Tartakovsky said:
Judge Reed O’Connor definitely dropkicked the door wide open to kill NFA /SBRs with “common use” and also by saying that “it is lawful to take a lawfully-owned pistol and modify it by attaching A BRACE OR STOCK TO THE LAWFULLY OWNED PISTOL so as to render it and the user to be safer, more proficient, more comfortable, more controllable and more accurate, in increasing one’s self-defense capabilities as well as limiting or reducing the possibility of others shot or killed accidentally/unintentionally. It’s absurd for the DOJ/ATF to consider it unlawful to modify a pistol in a way that it’s safer, more accurate and more controllable for the user and safer to bystanders. The ATF’s own language shows these pistols are objectively in common use, a standard so forth set in DC vs Heller and reaffirmed in NY vs Bruen.” Awesome argument.
Click to expand...

Hell yeah. Thanks for the copy and paste for people who didn’t want to read through the injunction ruling.
 

Similar threads

Federal Judge Rules Millions Of NRA Members Exempt From ATF Pistol Brace Rule
Replies
12
Views
556
1919FAN
1919FAN
ATF Receiver Rule - FPC Granted Cert
Replies
9
Views
484
pastera
pastera
Status of Pistol brace ruling?
Replies
0
Views
126
TomMalthus
T
Preliminary injunction Nationwide
2
Replies
31
Views
1K
Broc
Broc
ATF new report shows FFLs are not the problem
2
Replies
47
Views
1K
SkilledSovereignty
S
Back
Top Bottom