ATF and pistol braces ?

P

Paul B.

New member
"At least three million guns with stabilizing braces are in circulation in the U.S., according to the ATF. Other estimates place the number much higher."

Interesting. I keep getting E-mail from GOA about Biden banning pistol braces starting June first but the number supposedly in country is 40,000,000. Then they ask you to sign their petition and send money. I've heard that Biden wants to ban handguns period! Problem is the E-mail hints that it's just pistol braces. be nice if they'd be more explicit in what they want done.
Paul B.
 
T

TunnelRat

New member
Paul B. said:
"At least three million guns with stabilizing braces are in circulation in the U.S., according to the ATF. Other estimates place the number much higher."

Interesting. I keep getting E-mail from GOA about Biden banning pistol braces starting June first but the number supposedly in country is 40,000,000.
Click to expand...

Hence the “much higher” part of the quote.
 
M

MTT TL

New member
Was there ever any clarification on who the court order applies to? It appears to apply only to the plaintiffs.
 
Z

zeke

New member
MTT TL said:
Was there ever any clarification on who the court order applies to? It appears to apply only to the plaintiffs.
Click to expand...
Internet rumor, as opposed to an actual published ruling, has it a clarification is scheduled for June 4. And i can find no actual documentation for the rumor.
 
N

Nathan

New member
MSSA reported that it applies to planiffs only. They indicate this as their own research and assessment by a non-attorney, but long time firearms law expert.
 
4

44 AMP

Staff
I think every case, including SCOTUS cases only apply to the specific case being ruled on. After the case is closed, the ruling(s) may be used as precedent for future cases, and cases in other courts, and laws and practices may be changed due to the expectation of precedents being used.

If I've got that wrong, please let me know.
 
Z

zeke

New member
44 AMP said:
I think every case, including SCOTUS cases only apply to the specific case being ruled on. After the case is closed, the ruling(s) may be used as precedent for future cases, and cases in other courts, and laws and practices may be changed due to the expectation of precedents being used.

If I've got that wrong, please let me know.
Click to expand...
That is likely true for preliminary injunctions. A supreme court ruling on the other hand may have a much wider application depending on how it is written, and don't think everyone would have to have a similar case go to the supreme court. However am not a lawyer and certainly not knowledgeable enough to say anyone's opinion is wrong.

In the state, we used published precedent cases to determine our actions in application of State codes/statutes. That may just be how we were told to operate, a certain lawyers opinion or just our state and have no clue past that.
 
H

HiBC

New member
Unelected bureaucrat agencies have been pushing their regulations with force of law for some years now,
The EPA is getting a "tune up" over getting crazy with the wetlands rules.
And the BATF has gone too far.
Congress has gone lazy. They like that system.

The pendulum swings. I'm encouraged that SCOTUS may have recognized that the Constitution was not written with that intent.

MAYBE? We can hope SCOTUS is trending toward deciding the unelected bureaucrats and their enforcers are obligated to OBEY the law. Not build their Empire, Micromanage and Persecute the Citizen,

Remember in large part the Constitution was written to protect Freedom and limit Government.
 
4

44 AMP

Staff
Remember in large part the Constitution was written to protect Freedom and limit Government.
Click to expand...

Included in the idea of limiting govt is the fact that the SCOTUS is not required to "micro manage" the rest of the legal system. Nor does it "assist" Congress in writing laws. That's simply not their job.
 
M

Metal god

New member
I read somewhere that it does only cover plaintiffs . However the firearms policy coalition is suing on behalf of all it's members . Maybe it will be clarified on the 4th but it's been said joining the FPC as a member now makes you a Plaintiff ?? There is some push back out there on that and some are saying you needed to be a member before the original filing . Maybe that will be what will be discussed on the 4th . Wait .... as I write this I realize the 4th is a Sunday ??? so that can't be the day the court plans to clarify anything. Haha now we need a clarification on that ?
 
A

Aguila Blanca

Staff
In general, a United States Circuit Court of Appeals ruling is binding only within the geographic region covered by that circuit. So if a circuit rules that the ban doesn't apply to FPC members, aside from the question of people who joined after the ruling (or after the case was filed) there is also the question of whether or not it applies to FPC members who live outside of the area covered by that circuit. I am not a lwyer, but my guess would be, "Probably not."

IMHO, it's still a huge can of worms that I want no part of.
 
H

Hellcat1

New member
According to a lot of experts out there, this ruling should apply to ALL FPC members (although it isn't clear when you would have to have joined). Likewise, similar rulings have come down in favor of 2nd Amendment Coalition members, as well as GOA members. Here's just one video summarizing all three:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5y7-jNmep2c


Frank
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top