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: 4132743" data-attributes="member: 7157"><p>Ok, I spent some time today reading up on the O’Connor ruling in <em>Mock v. Garland</em>, and I have to take back what I said about the Judge being unfavorable toward 2A. In his ruling granting the plaintiffs the requested preliminary injunction against ATF enforcing the pistol brace rule where the plaintiffs and their members are concerned, O’Connor actually did something not done before in the pistol brace arena. Instead of basing his decision on ATF violations of administrative procedures, O’Connor cited 2A as his reason - that’s a first. He said that, based on the common use test, braced pistols were, by ATF’S own numbers, not dangerous <u>and</u> unusual, despite the agency’s contention to the contrary. With some 5 million braced pistols in use, again based on ATF’s calculations, and with semiautomatic pistols being in common use by any standard, O’Connor said ATF failed to demonstrate how braces made pistols more dangerous <u>and</u> unusual. So by invoking 2A, O’Connor has given pistol brace supporters a critical advantage; where before ATF could just go back and redo their pistol brace rule, adhering to all administrative rules, now ATF has to deal with their rule being viewed as unconstitutional no matter how they restructure it. This is a big deal!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Perplexed, post: 4132743, member: 7157"] Ok, I spent some time today reading up on the O’Connor ruling in [I]Mock v. Garland[/I], and I have to take back what I said about the Judge being unfavorable toward 2A. In his ruling granting the plaintiffs the requested preliminary injunction against ATF enforcing the pistol brace rule where the plaintiffs and their members are concerned, O’Connor actually did something not done before in the pistol brace arena. Instead of basing his decision on ATF violations of administrative procedures, O’Connor cited 2A as his reason - that’s a first. He said that, based on the common use test, braced pistols were, by ATF’S own numbers, not dangerous [U]and[/U] unusual, despite the agency’s contention to the contrary. With some 5 million braced pistols in use, again based on ATF’s calculations, and with semiautomatic pistols being in common use by any standard, O’Connor said ATF failed to demonstrate how braces made pistols more dangerous [U]and[/U] unusual. So by invoking 2A, O’Connor has given pistol brace supporters a critical advantage; where before ATF could just go back and redo their pistol brace rule, adhering to all administrative rules, now ATF has to deal with their rule being viewed as unconstitutional no matter how they restructure it. This is a big deal! [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
NFA & Class III Discussion
Anyone register a pistol brace?
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom