Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
NFA & Class III Discussion
Anyone register a pistol brace?
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Perplexed" data-source="post: 4125284" data-attributes="member: 7157"><p>Well, the 60 days to issue a ruling on the preliminary injunction, set by the Fifth Circuit in <em>Mock v. Garland, </em>runs out on Saturday the 30th. This means the original judge in the <em>Mock</em> case, Reed O’Connor, has until COB this Friday to decide whether or not to grant the preliminary injunction to the plaintiffs that they asked for in the beginning. With the Fifth Circuit basically saying that ATF had biffed the whole APA process, and the plaintiffs had showed their motion to have merit (the hardest part), it’s going to be very difficult for Judge O’Connor not to grant the preliminary injunction. The interesting development in this case is that the plaintiffs added a clause to their motion, requesting that the preliminary injunction be granted nationwide - not just for the plaintiffs and their organization members. Their argument is that there already are several conditional preliminary injunctions on the books, and since ATF had violated the APA, the pistol brace rule was very likely going to be ruled unconstitutional. So why not prevent ATF from enforcing the pistol brace rule at all anywhere? I’m guessing O’Connor, having already ruled against the plaintiffs (and getting smacked for it), is going to grant a preliminary injunction only to the plaintiffs (and in a grudging manner). It’s going to be interesting what comes out by the end of the day tomorrow…</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Perplexed, post: 4125284, member: 7157"] Well, the 60 days to issue a ruling on the preliminary injunction, set by the Fifth Circuit in [I]Mock v. Garland, [/I]runs out on Saturday the 30th. This means the original judge in the [I]Mock[/I] case, Reed O’Connor, has until COB this Friday to decide whether or not to grant the preliminary injunction to the plaintiffs that they asked for in the beginning. With the Fifth Circuit basically saying that ATF had biffed the whole APA process, and the plaintiffs had showed their motion to have merit (the hardest part), it’s going to be very difficult for Judge O’Connor not to grant the preliminary injunction. The interesting development in this case is that the plaintiffs added a clause to their motion, requesting that the preliminary injunction be granted nationwide - not just for the plaintiffs and their organization members. Their argument is that there already are several conditional preliminary injunctions on the books, and since ATF had violated the APA, the pistol brace rule was very likely going to be ruled unconstitutional. So why not prevent ATF from enforcing the pistol brace rule at all anywhere? I’m guessing O’Connor, having already ruled against the plaintiffs (and getting smacked for it), is going to grant a preliminary injunction only to the plaintiffs (and in a grudging manner). It’s going to be interesting what comes out by the end of the day tomorrow… [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
NFA & Class III Discussion
Anyone register a pistol brace?
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom