Anyone register a pistol brace?

[Perplexed]

It sounds like you have the most, and best knowledge of the situation. Thank you for the update. It is going to be interesting to see how this all plays out.

It annoys me to no end that the ATF would have gotten away with flip flopping as much as it has on the issue of arm braces, and that US citizens would have to spend so much time and money in court to make the ATF play by its own damn rules. Also, the White House has way too much influence where the ATF is concerned, and they need to be b!tch slapped - legally, of course - for that as well. Don’t like the rules? Take it up with the legislative branch!

 

[Honey Badger]

It annoys me to no end that the ATF would have gotten away with flip flopping as much as it has on the issue of arm braces, and that US citizens would have to spend so much time and money in court to make the ATF play by its own damn rules. Also, the White House has way too much influence where the ATF is concerned, and they need to be b!tch slapped - legally, of course - for that as well. Don’t like the rules? Take it up with the legislative branch!

It seems to be the “Golden Rule” at play. Those who have the gold make the rules. Right now the director of the ATF is a Biden puppet. So they think they are untouchable.

 

[Beautiful Mulberry]

It seems to be the “Golden Rule” at play. Those who have the gold make the rules. Right now the director of the ATF is a Biden puppet. So they think they are untouchable.

 

[Perplexed]

A bit of an update… in the case of Frac v. Garland, filed in North Dakota by the Attorneys General of 25 states, the Federal judge denied the motion for a preliminary injunction by the plaintiffs. The judge, unlike in Mock v. Garland, said that the plaintiffs did not have enough of an argument to warrant such an ”unusual” measure, and that the ATF had not violated the APA, nor was there enough ambiguity in the definition of a “rifle” to warrant invoking the rule of lenity. This is a bit of a setback in the general scheme of things in getting the ATF to stop playing fast and loose with the rules, but the ND judge’s reasons for not granting the preliminary injunction are pretty flimsy and contradict several standing legal precedents, so it’s not an insurmountable obstacle. Just means more work, and more money spent, by the plaintiffs to get the US government (cough*Biden administration*cough) to respect the US Constitution. Stay tuned.

 

[caliberbob]

View attachment 370621

Top 10 movies of all time

 

[caliberbob]

What’s a pistol brace?

 

[Beautiful Mulberry]

With all the compliance, with the people being lazy, pushing their own security offf on government agencies not wanting to perfect themselves by paying for more law enforcement, living off government services, of coarse they will do what they want. It’s the will of the people. Karl Marx

 

[Perplexed]

Well, the 60 days to issue a ruling on the preliminary injunction, set by the Fifth Circuit in Mock v. Garland, runs out on Saturday the 30th. This means the original judge in the Mock 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…

 

[cowadle]

Well, the 60 days to issue a ruling on the preliminary injunction, set by the Fifth Circuit in Mock v. Garland, runs out on Saturday the 30th. This means the original judge in the Mock 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…

results?????

 

[Perplexed]

results?????

Crickets so far. I haven’t found anything at all in the past 24 hours. Maybe O’Connor is going to issue his opinion today… or just ignore the 5th Circuit Court’s directive.