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: 4119699" data-attributes="member: 7157"><p>A bit of an update… in the case of <em>Frac v. Garland</em>, 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 <em>Mock v. Garland</em>, 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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Perplexed, post: 4119699, member: 7157"] A bit of an update… in the case of [I]Frac v. Garland[/I], 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 [I]Mock v. Garland[/I], 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
NFA & Class III Discussion
Anyone register a pistol brace?
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom