[Red Badger]

Brace yourself ping!................

[CatOwner]

The leftists aren’t even close to being done with judge shopping.

[bk1000]

I thought it was illegal to demand a firearms registry. They have gone as far as to declare a small piece of metal a “machine gun”. Hood rats running around with Glock switches and they want to pick on NRA members who want to protect their hearing and enjoy shooting. Some outfit. I say defund the ATF now.

[PROCON]

RKBA Ping List

This Ping List is for all news pertaining to infringes upon or victories for the 2nd Amendment.

FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from this Ping List.

More 2nd Amendment related articles on FR's Bang List.

[Eagles6]

As stated in the article, Judge O'Conner has, already, issued a nationwide injunction against the pistol brace rule.

The 16" rule was purely arbitrary, anyhow, as was the "gun muffler" ban.

[OKSooner]

Hypothetical question:

How does this ruling affect NRA members who do NOT currently own a pistol/brace? Are they covered by this ruling as well, and in a good position to run out and buy a pistol and brace combo of their choice, or would they run afoul of the BATFE if they do?

Again, this is a strictly hypothetical question as I've seen the light to global peace and tranquility and cut all my guns up into scrap, receiver first then the barrel, and disposed of them for their scrap value.

I'm not into that kinda stuff any more, I'm just axin' out of curiosity.

[circlecity]

The whole pistol brace thing is just a way to get around the stupid law against short barreled rifles. Let’s just rid of this law and resolve the whole thing.

[Gay State Conservative]

later

[Paal Gulli]

The judge who made this ruling is black. And he was a Klinton appointee.

There’s a copy of the complete ruling here:

https://thereload.com/app/uploads/2024/04/Order-Granting-Preliminary-Injunction-003.pdf

If you have a braced pistol you might want to keep a copy handy in case Barney Fife decides to hassle you. My LGS has an indoor range and about weekly it changes whether they’ll allow braces on it because the ATF has specifically directed them to report anyone shooting a braced pistol.

The crux of the biscuit:

Memorandum Opinion and Order – Page 22

III. Conclusion and Preliminary Injunction

For the reasons explained, the court concludes that the NRA has associational standing to sue on behalf of its members and has met its burden of establishing each of the four requirements for a preliminary injunction. The court, therefore, grants the NRA’s Motion (Doc. 8) and request for a preliminary injunction, and it enjoins the ATF; Steven Dettelbach, in his official capacity as the Director of the ATF; the United States Department of Justice; and Merrick Garland, in his official capacity as the United States Attorney General from enforcing the Final Rule against the NRA’s members pending the final resolution of this action on the merits. In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d), this preliminary injunction order enjoins and applies with equal force to Defendants’ “officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys,” and “other persons who are in active concert or participation with anyone described in Rule 65(d)(2)(A) or (B),” and Defendants shall provide notice to all such persons of this preliminary injunction order.

It is so ordered this 29th day of March, 2024.

[Billthedrill]

The judge was certainly correct about the severe penalty part - it's ten years in prison and a $250,000 fine for possession of something you acquired and possessed legally up to the arbitrary regulation change. Stroke of a pen, law of the land, you just woke up a felon. Surprise!

That didn't go down very well with the SC with respect to the EPA, who got spanked for committing just that sort of abuse. If a rule change creates millions of felons out of the clear blue sky that's beyond the scope of a federal agency and will require federal legislation - at least, because that legislation has to pass Constitutional muster as well. That, incidentally, has nothing to do with the Bruen decision, which is a whole separate criticism of this debacle. The regulation is being challenged on that ground too.

What I'm anxious about is that a Court that prefers narrow rulings may strike the regulation down on the basis of its blatant disregard of the Administrative Procedures Act, wherein it is specified that a regulation may not be presented for public comment and then a different one be substituted in its place, which is exactly what the ATF did. That bad part about a ruling on that basis is that the ATF could simply back up, re-present the actual regulation for comment, and go through the whole dance all over again.

I do agree that the root of the problem is the 90-year-old National Firearms Act, which needs to go altogether. Suppressors and SBRs are not a menace to society and the registration of full-auto firearms has been a cheat since 1986, when it was discovered that under the then-new bill nothing whatever would be allowed civilians that had not been manufactured before that date. Surprise! The NFA needs to go but I have no real hope that this court will rule that broadly. But then I thought that about Roe v Wade, too, and look where we are on that one. So there's hope, albeit mighty slim.

[Thomas Jerome]

How does an NRA member have more rights than a normal citizen?

[Dead Corpse]

The only reason there was a brace rule was to get around the idiot ATF's arbitrary BS over AR pistols. AR pistols were only a thing because of ATF's BS over short barreled rifles. Short barreled rifles were only a thing because the ATF "deemed" them as part of the NFA of '34. The NFA of '34 only had legitimacy as a TAX, but when it became an "infringement" should have been tossed out on it's ear...

We need to stop pretending along with the criminals in the ATF that they have any legitimacy at all. Them and every single arbitrary INFRINGEMENT they are currently killing people over...