ATF and pistol braces ?

M

Metal god

New member
AB , that’s an interesting idea , needing to be a member in the jurisdiction of the court seems like a reasonable possibility.
 
A

Aguila Blanca

Staff
Hellcat1 said:
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
Click to expand...
What makes that old man an expert? Is he a practicing attorney? Why should I risk my future freedom on what he says?

By the way: "... this ruling should apply ..." is a far cry from "... this ruling applies ..." Should is wishful thinking. I'm not financially or psycologically prepared to risk the rest of my life based on somebody's [probably overly enthusiastic] opinion of "should."
 
A

Aguila Blanca

Staff
Metal god said:
Here you go AB , this is a real practicing lawyer quoting some of the current clarifications in multiple cases .
Click to expand...

Interesting but, for people like me who are inherently averse to risk, hardly conclusive. Note that he says that this "probably" means FPC and SAF members are covered. Who wants to volunteer to be the test case?

Now let's look at two other statements from the video. At 04:40:

The court order further indicated that the purpose of this clarification was simply to preserve the status quo ante for the parties and persons within the reasonable scope of the motion panels's injunction pending appeal.
Click to expand...

"Ante" is a Latin word that means "before." So if the purpose of the injunctions is to preserve the status quo as it was BEFORE the suits were filed, then the injunctions would apply to people who were members of the FPC and SAF BEFORE the suits were filed, but very well might not apply to people who only joined after the injunctions were handed down.

Next, at 06:24:

So ... whether or not these injunctions extend beyond the scope of the state of Texas or the Fifth Circuit is a whole nother video that we will need to do.
Click to expand...

So even this practicing attorney isn't saying that these injunctions apply anywhere outside of the state of Texas (for the SAF) or the Fifth Circuit (for the FPC). He's not saying they don't -- he's saying that's a question that needs a separate video -- which to me suggests that it's not a clear-cut yes-or-no answer.

So, while it is good news that two courts have put the new rules on hold pending appeal, I don't think it's time to uncork the Champaign just yet.
 
H

Hellcat1

New member
Metal god said:
Here you go AB , this is a real practicing lawyer quoting some of the current clarifications in multiple cases .

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TGHgtyYa00E&t=13s&pp=ygUSd2FzaGluZ3RvbiBndW4gbGF3
Click to expand...
Thanks for the link, MG. That's actually one of the videos I was originally looking for when I posted the above link. After not finding it, I posted the above video of the "old man" because I thought he did a good job of summarizing all three cases, including the GOA case.


Frank
 
H

Hellcat1

New member
Aguila Blanca said:
Interesting but, for people like me who are inherently averse to risk, hardly conclusive. Note that he says that this "probably" means FPC and SAF members are covered. Who wants to volunteer to be the test case?

Now let's look at two other statements from the video. At 04:40:



"Ante" is a Latin word that means "before." So if the purpose of the injunctions is to preserve the status quo as it was BEFORE the suits were filed, then the injunctions would apply to people who were members of the FPC and SAF BEFORE the suits were filed, but very well might not apply to people who only joined after the injunctions were handed down.

Next, at 06:24:



So even this practicing attorney isn't saying that these injunctions apply anywhere outside of the state of Texas (for the SAF) or the Fifth Circuit (for the FPC). He's not saying they don't -- he's saying that's a question that needs a separate video -- which to me suggests that it's not a clear-cut yes-or-no answer.

So, while it is good news that two courts have put the new rules on hold pending appeal, I don't think it's time to uncork the Champaign just yet.
Click to expand...
Agreed, no reason for celebration quite yet, but it is looking promising.

And FYI, it is official now that a third injunction has been issued against the pistol brace ban, with GOA members being the beneficiaries of this one. Here's a summary of that case: https://thereload.com/third-injunction-issued-against-biden-pistol-brace-ban-on-eve-of-enforcement/


Frank
 
4

44 AMP

Staff
A Congressional bill and the various lawsuits to block the rule change implementation are internet news the past couple days, (and probably be out of the headlines very soon).

Of course, the "net news" is leaving out some of the pertinent information, and treating it as D/R power struggle, and not the legal and civil rights issue it actually is.

Since I gave up on the idea of braced/stocked pistols when the ATF changed its mind and screwed me over on the status of my Broomhandle Mauser stock many years ago, I've just been watching this from the sidelines, as a matter of principle.

As I see it, regulation is to provide a framework for enforcement of law, not to define or redefine what the law covers. We'll see where this goes....and I hope the actual principles don't get trampled or ignored in the political power struggle of "popular opinion" over which party supports what.
 
M

MTT TL

New member
Biden has already stated he will veto the bill.
"The rationale is clear: short-barreled rifles are more concealable than long guns, yet more dangerous and accurate at a distance than traditional pistols," the White House said in a Monday statement. "As a result of this industry innovation, in the past few years we have witnessed mass shooters – including those in Dayton, Ohio, and Boulder, Colorado – use these ‘brace’ devices on heavy pistols in order to inflict mass carnage."
Click to expand...

They certainly have been used in mass shootings. The only thing is I can't think of any time that one was used where either:

A- Concealment played a role or
B- A rifle wouldn't have been more effective.

The whole point was to make AR pistols more accurate, so I guess they want us to have less accurate guns?
 
4

44 AMP

Staff
The whole point was to make AR pistols more accurate, so I guess they want us to have less accurate guns?
Click to expand...

did you miss this part??

... more dangerous and accurate at a distance than traditional pistols,...
Click to expand...

seemed like a pretty obvious statement to me. The more accurately one can shoot, the more dangerous "the weapon" is.

The problem here is that the people with this mindset never let reality get in the way of their preconceived notions.

Do remember that it was VP Biden who told us all one needed for defense was a double barrel shotgun, and we should just shoot it in the air and the police will come.....

among other things of dubious truth...:rolleyes:
 
M

MTT TL

New member
Do remember that it was VP Biden who told us all one needed for defense was a double barrel shotgun, and we should just shoot it in the air and the police will come.....
Click to expand...

In all fairness when most people shoot a double barrel shotgun in the air, the police often do come....
 
4

44 AMP

Staff
In all fairness when most people shoot a double barrel shotgun in the air, the police often do come....
Click to expand...

And, generally arrive well after the issue is decided, one way or the other....

Also what works well enough for someone with a Secret Service detail assigned to them for their protection doesn't apply well to the rest of us. :rolleyes:
 
M

MTT TL

New member
It's code for Gog and Mogog are loading up the space ship with all the primaries and preparing for departure. the planet isn't worth saving. Food humans file into the cargo area.
 
4

44 AMP

Staff
In recent "mainstream" news I've seen reports of the House passing a bill that would stop the rule change, and the Senate killing it (by ONE vote), completely along partisan lines in both chambers.

When our rights and the proper interpretation and enforcement of the law become political "footballs" kicked around and voted on solely on the basis of party alignment, WE ALL LOSE.

Right now, the options for those people who have such things (braces now defined as stocks) seem to be, register them with the ATF under all their requirements, or remove them from your gun(s), or risk becoming a convicted felon if you get caught having one on a gun.

Until/unless we get enough people in office and positions of authority who recognize that THINGS aren't the problem OR the solution, we're pretty well stuck in this seemingly endless cycle of banning any THING that someone else decides we don't "need" when it is deliberately misused.
 
R

rickyrick

New member
It’s a pretty dumb thing to ban that really makes very little difference.
If the AR had no buffer tube that protrudes out of the back we wouldn’t even be having this problem.
Seems like the government is trying to play a game of Gotcha with its law abiding citizens. Pretty nefarious for a republic that is supposed to serve the people.
The bill of rights is supposed to be human freedoms that the government must stay out of.
All political parties should be in agreement on human rights in an ideal situation. Lol.

I feel as though we are going to be spending our last days together at the Chestnut Tree Cafe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top