Federal Judge Blocks Enforcement of ATF Rule Targeting Pistol Braces [1/30/24]

Epoch Times ^ | 1/30/24 | Jack Phillips

[CFW]

A federal judge in Florida granted a request for a preliminary injunction to block enforcement of a new federal gun law related to stabilizing braces and whether they convert firearms into short-barrel rifles.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) cannot enforce the rule against individuals who live “in the state of Florida,” U.S. District Judge Mary Scriven wrote in an order this week. In part, the judge wrote that the ATF and other defendants, including Director Steven Dettelbach, were not able to meet the standard of showing that the ATF rule falls under “the plain text of the Second Amendment” of the U.S. Constitution after the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling last year that struck down a 100-year-old gun regulation in New York state. That ruling, the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, found that carrying a pistol in public was a constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment.

“To satisfy their burden under the strictures of Bruen, defendants must, at the preliminary injunction stage, show that they are likely to prevail on plaintiffs’ challenge that these strictures find analogs in the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,” Judge Scriven wrote.

[CFW]

Good news again on the ATF's pistol brace rule.

paywall free link:

Federal Judge Blocks Enforcement of ATF Rule Targeting Pistol Braces

[kiryandil]

Bruen is really bitin’ ‘em in the azz...

[CFW]

Another 2nd Amendment article here as well:

https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/california-county-bucks-state-law-approves-concealed-carry-in-local-government-buildings-5577180?ea_src=frontpage&ea_med=latest-news-0

“California County Bucks State Law, Approves Concealed Carry in Local Government Buildings”

[CFW]

“Bruen is really bitin’ ‘em in the azz...”

---

And it is really good to see. We just may be needing that Second to preserve all the rest of our rights.

[Paal Gulli]

This completely obliterates the lawful distinction between a braced pistol and a short-barreled rifle.

Which could be the first loose thread in the unraveling of the 1934 National Firearms Act. No need to go after the Hughes Amendment or the 1968 GCA; if you undermine the NFA, they all tumble.

[Eagles6]

There is, already, a nationwide injunction.

https://thetexan.news/issues/second-amendment/pistol-brace-regulation-blocked-in-nationwide-injunction-from-amarillo-federal-judge/article_79dee5e6-7f4d-11ee-ae8e-e775c3ba76e1.html

The 16" barrel length was arbitrary, at any rate.

Like 6' social distancing.

[ETCM]

Using the NFA to regulate Short Barreled Rifles, Suppressors, etc needs to go. The courts also needs to smack down the states that ban these devices, SBRs and various “features”.

[Roadrunner383]

Not just a 2A issue. Where in the law does it say that pistol braces are illegal? The BATF just pulls stuff out of thin air with no legal basis.

[marktwain]

When the NFA was passed, in 1934, the legislators and the executive branch specifically mentioned they were using the power to tax, in order to avoid problems with the Second Amendment.

There have been several cases since then, where the Supreme Court has found a law which specifically targets a Constitutional right through taxation, is not valid.

As Justice Marshall said: The power to tax involves the power to destroy.

[zeugma]

As Justice Marshall said: The power to tax involves the power to destroy.

Indeed. Also, as you are aware, the Miller decision was decided incorrectly because of a fraud upon the court by the government. The court was not informed that sawed off shotguns were widely used in the trenches of WWI.

The full relevant quote from US v Miller:
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.

[zeugma]

I'd love to see Thomas quote the relevant part of Miller during Oral Arguments, then ask the government attorney, "Is it the position of the U.S. Government that sawed off shotguns were NOT used in the trenches during WWI and WWII?" "Further, does the U.S. Military use fully automatic weapons"? "Given that these two statements are obviously true, would it be fair to say that it is now within judicial notice that this weapon is a part of the ordinary military equipment and that its use could contribute to the common defense?"