[Eagles6]

Good news!

[Manic_Episode]

Ha! In your face unamerican unconstitutional oath breakers.

You suck!

[ETCM]

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

[Reno89519]

Good, now will they shred my pending application and delete it from all databases?

[Robert357]

That throws a monkey wrench in the argument that bump stocks make AR semiautomatics into fully automatic weapons of war and illegal. The critical assumption has just been deep sixed. There therefore, AR semiautomatics can not be regulated as fully automatic weapons of war.

[sauropod]

.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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