Federal Judge Blocks Nationwide Enforcement of Pistol-Brace Ban

The Reload ^ | 11/08/2023 | Stephen Gutowski

[DCBryan1]

Howzabout get rid of the Unconstitutional NFA and FOPA, all together?

With all the 10,000 page bills that get passed, how hard would it be for a Congresscritter to insert this little line in a bill:

18 USC 922 (o) is hereby repealed.

[pierrem15]

I have a better idea. Let’s get rid of ridiculous regulation of short barreled rifles.

That's an ironic outcome of the ATF's proposed ban: if braces are short-barreled arms, then they are in common use and not "dangerous and unusual," and therefore the short-barreled rule is un-Constitutional.

[CapnJack]

The 1934 NFA Act is Unconstitutional and should be reviewed ASAP.

The Supreme Court was intimidated by FDR’s goons in the mid thirties as well as presented with false arguments when the Court ruled that the NFA act was constitutional.

The MILLER rulling was a coplete hack job where Miller’s side was not even present and the Gov’t lawers were the only ones giving their side to the story and lied through their teeth about short barrel rifles.

[PROCON]

RKBA Ping List

This Ping List is for all news pertaining to infringes upon or victories for the 2nd Amendment.

FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from this Ping List.

More 2nd Amendment related articles on FR's Bang List.

[justme4now]

What’s fair is for government at all levels to keep their mitts off the 2nd!

In Marbury v. Madison the Supreme Court announced for the first time the principle that a court may declare an act of Congress void if it is inconsistent with the Constitution.

“All laws that are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.”
Marbury v. Madison

The Constitution, thus the 2nd are not/is not a “Rights” grantor!

They are limitations on government .. all government!

No part of the Fed or local law enforcement have the authority to limit the 2nd in any way!

[OKSooner]

It’s all very confounding. Someone please let me know when I can run out and legally buy an unregulated brace for a couple of pistols/SBRs I’ve had on the back burner of my wantwant list for some time now.

[Blood of Tyrants]

And the even more ridiculous ban on mufflers.

[Fury]

Good news for sure.

The amount of Executive branch induced overreach on bump stocks, pistol braces, SRTs, etc is disappointing, as both Repubicans and Democrats do.

Power is intoxicating, I guess.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Did you actually apply for a SBR tax stamp? Wasn’t that a little foolish and premature?

[Blood of Tyrants]

The firearm type only says pistol on the forms. Nothing about a brace.

[Paal Gulli]

"I have a better idea. Let’s get rid of ridiculous regulation of short barreled rifles. "

Hear, hear! Well-spoken Bruce!

The entire NFA devices list is a holdover from the knee-jerk reaction of a demoncrat federal administration to the gangsterism that the Volstead act fueled.

SBRs are less lethal than "real" rifles and well harder to conceal (but less likely to hit an innocent bystander) than un-stocked pistols.

[Billthedrill]

This is very hopeful. There were three active approaches to overturning this ridiculous action by the ATF: (1) that the ATF violated the Administrative Procedures Act by proposing one regulation and enacting something different (the act explicitly prohibits bait-and-switch); (2) that they overreached by proposing a *minor* rule change that caused 10-20 law-abiding people to become felons overnight (only Congress can do that, which is another issue itself); (3) that the entire NFA assumes powers that the government is denied under the 2nd Amendment.

The first approach would allow them to resubmit the regulation following the specified legal procedures and enact it afterward. The second would prohibit them from doing this without an act of Congress but they could do it anyway with one. The third would prohibit this and anything else that comes under the NFA. Naturally I'd prefer the third. The second would do but is much more finely focused (this Court seems to prefer limited rather than sweeping rulings so that may be a temptation). The third would be a major slap down of federal regulatory agencies in general, which is as unlikely as, say, turning down Roe v Wade, which turned out to be not entirely unlikely at all. Something of that nature has already been ruled with respect to the EPA and the Justices will be examining whether that ruling applies to the ATF as well.

No matter the outcome, the sad truth is that gun prohibitionists will simply regroup and try again. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.

[Billthedrill]

Sorry, that's 10-20 million law abiding people. I blame the FR proofreaders.

[Reno89519]

While I was a member of the gun group that had hold, I did not live in that appeals court circuit, so yes, I had to meet the applicable filing deadline. I’m a firearms instructor and do some licensed armed security, so couldn’t risk the whole matter.

[zeugma]

You'll find the decision itself Here

[Paal Gulli]

The conclusion of the (linked) judgement reads:

"For the foregoing reasons, the Court Grants the Motion and Stays the Rule in its entirety."

What is left out is exactly what "Grants the Motion" entails. This is a verbatim extract from the Plaintiff's filing:

RELIEF REQUESTED

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court:

A. Enter a temporary restraining order prohibiting ATF from enforcing the Rule;

B. Enter a preliminary injunction prohibiting ATF from enforcing the Rule;

C. Enter a declaratory judgment declaring that ATF does not have authority to promulgate the Rule, the Rule conflicts with the relevant statutes, the Rule is arbitrary and capricious, the Rule is void for vagueness, the Rule violates the Separation of Powers and the Second Amendment, or, in the alternative, the statutes granting ATF such unbridled power violate the Nondelegation Doctrine;

F. Enter a permanent injunction prohibiting ATF from promulgating the Rule;

G. Award Plaintiffs their attorney fees under 28 U.S.C. § 2412, 5 U.S.C. § 504, or other relevant laws; and

H. Grant Plaintiffs such other and further relief as the court deems appropriate.

Dated this 31st day of January, 2023.

In the common parlance, this is what's known as "bitch-slapping" the regulation.

Note also that they asked the rule be declared, "... arbitrary, capricious, vague, and violates separation of powers...." And Judge Kacsmaryk granted their request for relief in its entirety, which can only mean that the same fate awaits the ban on bump-fire stocks.

Happy days!

https://will-law.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/ATF-Complaint-Final-PDF.pdf

[Blood of Tyrants]

I don’t think you can get the ATF to cancel your application and unregister it.

[Robert357]

You need to read that wacko judges opinion that AR semiautomatic rifles should be regulated as if they were fully automatic (or select fire) weapons. It make no sense, and now that bumpstock regulations are thrown out by one federal judge, it just further cuts the feet off the argument that conflates AR’s with select fire or fully automatic M4’s

[Eagles6]

😉👌

[Eagles6]

Thanks