ATF Loses Another One

[Rightguide]

US

Federal Appeals Court Finds ATF Pistol Brace Rule Is Likely Unlawful: ‘Impossible For A Regular Citizen’​

https://dailycaller.com/files/images/DCNF-large.jpg
KATELYNN RICHARDSONCONTRIBUTOR
August 02, 202311:21 AM ET


“The Final Rule affects individual rights, speaks with the force of law, and significantly implicates private interests,” Judge Jerry E. Smith, a Reagan appointee, wrote in the opinion. “Thus, it is legislative in character.”

Smith wrote that the rule makes it “nigh impossible for a regular citizen to determine what constitutes a braced pistol” and whether “a specified brace pistol requires NFA registration.”

The three-judge panel sent the case back to U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas Judge Reed O’Connor to consider an order blocking enforcement of the rule while the case proceeds.

“Said in its simplest terms, the Fifth Circuit just indicated that the Plaintiffs–Firearms Policy Coalition, Maxim Defense, and FPC’s individual members–are likely to defeat ATF’s pistol brace rule when the merits of this case are finally heard,” Cody J. Wisniewski, FPC Action Foundation (FPCAF) General Counsel, said in a statement. “This is a huge win for peaceable gun owners across the nation, a huge win for FPC’s members, and yet another massive defeat for ATF and this administration’s gun control agenda.”

More here: https://dailycaller.com/2023/08/02/...e-likely-unlawful-impossible-regular-citizen/

Butters will be sad.

 

[HisArpy]

This was the expected outcome. The district court did a very good analysis of how the BATFE overstepped its regulatory authority before enjoining the rule. Upon request by the BATFE the district court stayed its decision pending this appeal which just waved bye bye to the pistol brace rule.

Their only hope is the SCOTUS which will not accept this case because it presents no Constitutional question.

 

[RobDownSouth]

"Peaceable gun owners"
No
Such
Thing

 

[SubzeroGirl]

They should change peaceable gun owners to protective gun owners. Peaceful implies they won’t fight. Protective means they will. I think it’s important for people, especially criminals, to know that.

 

[LLCox]

I have an AK pistol that could take a brace but I'd rather have the sling mount. Can't have both at the same time.

 

[Bray123]

Why would you fit a sling onto your rifle? Is Goliath coming over the hill?

 

[Rightguide]

This was the expected outcome. The district court did a very good analysis of how the BATFE overstepped its regulatory authority before enjoining the rule. Upon request by the BATFE the district court stayed its decision pending this appeal which just waved bye bye to the pistol brace rule.

Their only hope is the SCOTUS which will not accept this case because it presents no Constitutional question.

The ATF filing did make reference to the Bruen decision not being a defense against the its proposed rule.

 

[HisArpy]

The ATF filing did make reference to the Bruen decision not being a defense against the its proposed rule.

And they were found wanting in that argument.

 

[Rightguide]

And they were found wanting in that argument.

What is that the third case the Biden team has lost on administrative gun control in the past few months?

 

[Rightguide]

They should change peaceable gun owners to protective gun owners. Peaceful implies they won’t fight. Protective means they will. I think it’s important for people, especially criminals, to know that.

Criminals should always be in fear of the lives. Three well placed pistol rounds could have saved a million dollar plus smash and grab in San Francisco a few days ago.

 

[HisArpy]

Criminals should always be in fear of the lives. Three well placed pistol rounds could have saved a million dollar plus smash and grab in San Francisco a few days ago.

And then the security guard would have been fired and then prosecuted for doing what he was hired to do.

 

[Rightguide]

And then the security guard would have been fired and then prosecuted for doing what he was hired to do.

Yes, California has completely crushed, unconstitutionally I might add, the rights of private citizens to defend their persons and property with deadly force. These assholes had hammers and weapons. But yes, sadly, you are correct. Slowly but surely however this anti-gun BS is coming to an end in CA. No reasonable person believes that store owners have to helplessly stand by and take a million dollar loss in a matter of five minutes by force.

 

[HisArpy]

Yes, California has completely crushed, unconstitutionally I might add, the rights of private citizens to defend their persons and property with deadly force. These assholes had hammers and weapons. But yes, sadly, you are correct. Slowly but surely however this anti-gun BS is coming to an end in CA. No reasonable person believes that store owners have to helplessly stand by and take a million dollar loss in a matter of five minutes by force.

Not in our lifetimes.

The State is still asserting that the 2nd Amendment doesn't cover modern arms which weren't in existence at the time of the founding. They're still putting it into their appellate briefs too.

There was even an article spouting that same debunked bullshit in my newsfeed this morning.

It's not going to end unless/until the SCOTUS steps on the State hard. From their responses to the BS going on with the remanded gun rights cases from last summer, they're not going to do that.