OP
OP
LiveLife
Member
Repost from 6/3/23 - At 4:20 minute of video, Washington Gun Law repeats "members" of FPC/SAF/GOA are covered by the injunctions without limiting/specifying new vs current vs at the time of filing.
ATF pistol brace rule lawsuits
- Thread starter LiveLife
- Start date
OP
OP
LiveLife
Member
Repost from 6/3/23 - So even with 0.6% registration, we are already surpassing "in common use" according to Supreme Court's Caetano ruling. 
ATF Says a Quarter Million Guns Registered Under Pistol-Brace Ban - https://thereload.com/atf-says-a-quarter-million-guns-registered-under-pistol-brace-rule/
ATF Says a Quarter Million Guns Registered Under Pistol-Brace Ban - https://thereload.com/atf-says-a-quarter-million-guns-registered-under-pistol-brace-rule/
- The ATF told The Reload on Friday it has received just over a quarter million applications to register pistol-brace
- That number represents just a fraction of the braced guns believed to have been sold ... ATF estimated that three to seven million ... Congressional Research Service puts the number much higher at somewhere between 10 and 40 million
- That puts the registration rate for pistol-brace-equipped guns at between .6 percent and eight percent.
- ... millions of gun owners don’t have to worry ... because of recent injunctions issued by a collection of federal judges ... that blocks the ATF from enforcing its rule against FPC members or Maxim Defense customers ... SAF members ... GOA members.
- The Fifth Circuit panel ... Hearings in the case are set to begin on June 29th
OP
OP
LiveLife
Member
Repost from 6/8/23 - Another preliminary injunction issued against ATF pistol brace rule in Watterson v ATF (ATF pistol brace rule) filed by Texas Public Policy Foundation - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txed.219996/gov.uscourts.txed.219996.37.0.pdf
The Fifth Circuit’s upcoming opinion will likely answer pertinent legal issues that face the Court. In light of the Fifth Circuit’s injunction in Mock, the Court believes the proper recourse is to issue an injunction that enjoins Defendants from enforcing the rule against Watterson pending the Fifth Circuit’s decision.
It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief Under 5 U.S.C. § 705 or, Alternatively, for a Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. #7) is hereby GRANTED in part. It is further ORDERED that Defendants are ENJOINED from enforcing the Final Rule against Plaintiff in this case. The preliminary injunction shall remain in effect pending resolution of the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Mock v. Garland.
It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief Under 5 U.S.C. § 705 or, Alternatively, for a Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. #7) is hereby GRANTED in part. It is further ORDERED that Defendants are ENJOINED from enforcing the Final Rule against Plaintiff in this case. The preliminary injunction shall remain in effect pending resolution of the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Mock v. Garland.
OP
OP
LiveLife
Member
Repost from 6/8/23 - Update for pistol brace cases - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/17-states-join-goa-gof-and-sue-atf’s-new-firearms-rule-on-80-percent-kits.908730/page-3#post-12639857
Latest preliminary injunction was issued against ATF pistol brace rule in Watterson v ATF (ATF pistol brace rule) filed by Texas Public Policy Foundation - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/17-states-join-goa-gof-and-sue-atf’s-new-firearms-rule-on-80-percent-kits.908730/page-3#post-12644897
Armed Scholar/attorney Anthony Miranda who worked with FPC discuss various cases:
Latest preliminary injunction was issued against ATF pistol brace rule in Watterson v ATF (ATF pistol brace rule) filed by Texas Public Policy Foundation - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/17-states-join-goa-gof-and-sue-atf’s-new-firearms-rule-on-80-percent-kits.908730/page-3#post-12644897
Armed Scholar/attorney Anthony Miranda who worked with FPC discuss various cases:
- ATF pistol brace rule is in full effect as of 6/1/23 except for those covered by preliminary injunctions
- Tax-free amnesty for SBR registration has ended with only 255K applications received viewed as small percentage of potentially tens of millions of pistol braces indicating possible mass non-compliance and/or lack of public awareness of change in ATF pistol brace rule
- For Mock v Garland, 5th Circuit hearing will start on 6/29 and FPC will argue whether the preliminary injunction should have been nationwide
- District court cases' preliminary injunctions are pending 5th Circuit ruling on Mock v Garland
- House will vote next week on H.J. Res. 44, that is unlikely to pass the Senate with certainty that Biden will veto but may apply political pressures on some politicians
OP
OP
LiveLife
Member
Repost from 6/9/23 - Update for SAF v ATF case - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/17-states-join-goa-gof-and-sue-atf’s-new-firearms-rule-on-80-percent-kits.908730/page-3#post-12639857
NRA Files Papers in Legal Challenge to ATF “Pistol Brace Rule” - https://www.nraila.org/articles/202...rule-defends-members-against-arbitrary-attack
NRA Files Papers in Legal Challenge to ATF “Pistol Brace Rule” - https://www.nraila.org/articles/202...rule-defends-members-against-arbitrary-attack
- NRA has filed "motion to intervene" (Request to join the case as a new party) to join the case as a named plaintiff - https://shared.nrapvf.org/sharedmedia/1511699/nra_brief.pdf
- This would expand preliminary injunction coverage to over 4 million NRA members
- NRA is also backing and supporting FRAC v ATF which covers residents of 25 states and manufacturers - https://www.nraila.org/articles/20230209/nra-challenges-atf-brace-rule
- While NRA may not be popular with many gun owners but the largest gun rights organization joining the pistol brace fight is huge
- Preliminary injunction of this case and other district court cases are pending Mock v Garland 5th Circuit hearing on 6/29 at 10 AM
OP
OP
LiveLife
Member
Repost from 6/10/23 - 10th lawsuit filed against ATF pistol brace rule in NAGR/TGR v ATF - https://will-law.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/2023-06-08-ATF-NAGR-TGR-Complaint98.pdf
Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL) filed a new federal lawsuit against the Biden Administration on behalf of over 200,000 firearm owners across America in coordination with National Association for Gun Rights Inc. (NAGR) and Texas Gun Rights, Inc. (TGR).
Lawsuit argues that a new rule from ATF usurps Congressional authority by significantly expanding the definition of “rifle” under federal law, imposing potential criminal liability on millions of Americans for exercising their Second Amendment rights.
This new lawsuit comes after WILL secured a preliminary injunction for its clients in Britto V. ATF (First ATF pistol brace lawsuit filed). Earlier this year, ATF adopted a new rule requiring 40-million gun owners to either give up their pistols or place their name on a registry and pay a tax. Under the new rule, ATF re-defines pistols with stabilizing arm braces as “short barrel rifles.”
Law-abiding citizens who do not register their pistols with ATF, or who are unable to navigate ATF’s notoriously slow red-tape-plagued process, face up to 10 years in jail and a potential $10,000 fine. ATF says gun owners must either register their firearm, “turn the firearm into your local ATF office,” or “destroy the firearm” before May 31st, 2023. That deadline has now passed and the rule is in effect.
The stabilizing arm brace is an accessory that attaches to the rear of the gun and allows the rifle to be fired one-handed. It was created in 2012 to assist disabled veterans, so that they could fire guns with safety and accuracy.
Lawsuit argues that a new rule from ATF usurps Congressional authority by significantly expanding the definition of “rifle” under federal law, imposing potential criminal liability on millions of Americans for exercising their Second Amendment rights.
This new lawsuit comes after WILL secured a preliminary injunction for its clients in Britto V. ATF (First ATF pistol brace lawsuit filed). Earlier this year, ATF adopted a new rule requiring 40-million gun owners to either give up their pistols or place their name on a registry and pay a tax. Under the new rule, ATF re-defines pistols with stabilizing arm braces as “short barrel rifles.”
Law-abiding citizens who do not register their pistols with ATF, or who are unable to navigate ATF’s notoriously slow red-tape-plagued process, face up to 10 years in jail and a potential $10,000 fine. ATF says gun owners must either register their firearm, “turn the firearm into your local ATF office,” or “destroy the firearm” before May 31st, 2023. That deadline has now passed and the rule is in effect.
The stabilizing arm brace is an accessory that attaches to the rear of the gun and allows the rifle to be fired one-handed. It was created in 2012 to assist disabled veterans, so that they could fire guns with safety and accuracy.
OP
OP
LiveLife
Member
Repost from 6/12/23 - Update to Congressional effort to reverse ATF pistol brace rule - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...n-80-percent-kits.908730/page-3#post-12640764
Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.), Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-Ga.), Rep. Richard Hudson (R-N.C.), Second Amendment, and veterans advocacy groups issued statements on Rep. Clyde’s Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution to block the Biden Administration’s unconstitutional pistol brace rule ahead of its expected vote on the House Floor [Tuesday] - https://scalise.house.gov/press-rel...orters-Release-Statements-on-Pistol-Brace-CRA
The National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) is notifying House Members that they will be scoring [Tuesday’s] procedural rule vote on H.J. Res. 44, a resolution to nullify ATF’s ban on pistol braces - https://nationalgunrights.org/resou...congress-ahead-of-tuesdays-pistol-brace-vote/
Urge Congress to Overturn ATF’s Brace Rule - Please contact your federal legislators today and encourage them to vote “YES” on the disapproval resolution - https://www.nraila.org/articles/20230608/take-action-urge-congress-to-overturn-atf-s-brace-rule
And as anticipated, White House threatens to veto GOP resolution against its pistol brace ban - https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/4045638-white-house-pistol-brace-ban/
Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.), Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-Ga.), Rep. Richard Hudson (R-N.C.), Second Amendment, and veterans advocacy groups issued statements on Rep. Clyde’s Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution to block the Biden Administration’s unconstitutional pistol brace rule ahead of its expected vote on the House Floor [Tuesday] - https://scalise.house.gov/press-rel...orters-Release-Statements-on-Pistol-Brace-CRA
“The Biden Administration has unleashed unelected bureaucrats in the ATF to criminalize firearm ownership for millions of Americans. This is an unconstitutional assault on the Second Amendment ..."
The National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) is notifying House Members that they will be scoring [Tuesday’s] procedural rule vote on H.J. Res. 44, a resolution to nullify ATF’s ban on pistol braces - https://nationalgunrights.org/resou...congress-ahead-of-tuesdays-pistol-brace-vote/
“Congress should have acted sooner,” said Dudley Brown, President of the National Association for Gun Rights. “And now millions of brace owners are at risk of being fined and losing their freedom because Congress dragged their feet for months.”
“This is no time to play politics on the House floor. Every Republican in the House should support moving this resolution onto the Senate, and that is what we expect to happen. We will be scoring the rule vote. H.J. Res. 44 must move forward”
“This is no time to play politics on the House floor. Every Republican in the House should support moving this resolution onto the Senate, and that is what we expect to happen. We will be scoring the rule vote. H.J. Res. 44 must move forward”
Urge Congress to Overturn ATF’s Brace Rule - Please contact your federal legislators today and encourage them to vote “YES” on the disapproval resolution - https://www.nraila.org/articles/20230608/take-action-urge-congress-to-overturn-atf-s-brace-rule
H.J.Res.44, sponsored by Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-GA) and Rep. Richard Hudson (R-NC), is a disapproval resolution under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) that would invalidate ATF’s brace rule and block the agency from reissuing the same rule in the future. The U.S. Senate may consider companion legislation sponsored by Senator John Kennedy (R-LA) shortly thereafter.
And as anticipated, White House threatens to veto GOP resolution against its pistol brace ban - https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/4045638-white-house-pistol-brace-ban/
The White House on Monday renewed its support for the Biden administration’s pistol brace ban, threatening to veto a resolution that has been linked to the House conservatives’ revolt.
The GOP resolution disapproves of the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) rule relating to “Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached ‘Stabilizing Braces,’” which the Biden administration released in January ... That marks a change from 2012, when the ATF said pistol attachments do not change the classification of a pistol.
The GOP resolution disapproves of the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) rule relating to “Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached ‘Stabilizing Braces,’” which the Biden administration released in January ... That marks a change from 2012, when the ATF said pistol attachments do not change the classification of a pistol.
OP
OP
LiveLife
Member
Repost from 6/12/23 - Congress demands ATF director answer additional pistol brace rule questions by June 29 in a new letter.
Congressman Moran Leads Letter to ATF Urging for the Repeal of Pistol Brace Reclassification Rule - https://moran.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=132
Congressman Moran Leads Letter to ATF Urging for the Repeal of Pistol Brace Reclassification Rule - https://moran.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=132
On January 31, 2023, the ATF issued a rule reclassifying pistols equipped with stabilizing braces as “short-barreled rifles”, and thus being subject to regulations under the National Firearms Act. With this rule, 99% of brace-equipped pistols would be subject to burdensome regulatory requirements that require lawful gun owners to register their pistols, pay hefty filing fees, or otherwise destroy their firearm under threat of federal criminal charges.
The last time a gun was reclassified by the ATF under the National Firearms Act, the grace period to register those firearms was open for seven years. For this rule, the ATF provided only a 120-day grace period, which ended on May 31st, 2023. Only 250,000 pistols were registered during the compliant period – an 8% compliance rate, at most.
For over a decade, millions of lawful gun owners have used these common braces with the ATF assuring them that attaching a stabilizing brace would not alter the classification of their firearm. The Supreme Court has affirmed that only Congress carries the authority to define what conduct does or does not carry criminal penalties. While an agency may at times issue interpretations of unclear laws that Congress has passed, Congress clearly defined what constitutes a short-barreled rifle – that definition does not include a stabilizing brace attached to a pistol - https://moran.house.gov/UploadedFil...r_to_ATF_re_Grace_Period_Extension_6.8.23.pdf
Director Dettelbach,
We write with deep concerns regarding the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosive’s (“ATF”) recently published major rule entitled: “Factoring Criteria for Firearms with an Attached Stabilizing Brace” hereinafter referred to as the “Rule” and its implementation. This rule, which reclassifies millions of pistols into “short-barreled rifles” under the National Firearms Act (NFA), is troublesome on multiple fronts. The Rule contradicts the ATF’s prior determination made during the Obama Administration, on which millions of gunowners have relied over the past decade. The Rule has also been enjoined by two federal district courts, but these injunctions are not nationwide injunctions. It’s only fair that all similarly situated persons be treated the same even if they are not expressly covered by these injunctions until, at the very least, the legal issue is resolved by the courts. Furthermore, the Rule includes the 120-day grace period for lawful gun owners to register their lawfully purchased pistols as “short-barreled rifles” with the ATF. This grace period was well short of previous grace periods instituted in cases where a gun was reclassified under the NFA.
To that end, we call on you to rescind this Rule which would make felons of millions of law-abiding Americans. In issuing this Rule, the ATF has abused its rulemaking authority by criminalizing a piece of plastic that assists users in operating firearms with more precision – an action which directly opposes its 2012 determination that stabilizing braces do not automatically subject pistols to regulation as “firearms” under the National Firearms Act. Furthermore, we call on you to extend the grace period for covered gun owners to register their firearms with your agency. The shortened grace period for the pistol brace rule will ultimately lead to less compliance and the risk of turning millions of lawful firearms owners felons overnight, including military servicemembers and others stationed abroad for extended periods of times. Congressional offices already received reports of at least one instance where a military service-member deployed overseas is unable to register their firearm back home, and thus, under this ruling, will be now labeled as a felon while defending American interests abroad.
The last time ATF sought to reclassify a firearm was in 1994, when the USAS-12, Striker 12, and Streetsweeper shotguns were reclassified as “destructive devices” under the NFA. The covered grace period for these firearms to be registered lasted until 2001. Your agencies’ registration period represents a 6 year and 8 months difference in registration grace periods from the last time firearms were reclassified and forced to be registered.
It is apparent that the ATF has not done enough to communicate to and educate the general public on these rule changes and the potential consequences of not being in compliance with the new requirements. Millions of lawful firearms owners are seemingly unaware that overnight they became felons. We are extremely concerned about ATF’s decision to not allow for more time to educate the general public on the new compliance for this rule, which leads us to speculate whether ATF instituted a shortened timeline by design.
Once the Biden Administration gave the order to go through with this ill-advised policy, ATF gave an extremely shortened timeline for gun owners to comply with its overreaching Rule. Congressional Republicans made clear through numerous hearings, letters, and comments that we strongly disagree with the Biden Administration’s attempts to carry out the pistol brace rule and ATF’s overreach in attempting to make laws without Congress.
For the sake of law-abiding firearms owners across the country and Americans serving overseas, we call on you to extend the timeline for grace period registrations for lawful gun owners to fall into compliance with the ATF Pistol Brace Ruling.
Please answer the below questions by June 29, 2023:
The last time a gun was reclassified by the ATF under the National Firearms Act, the grace period to register those firearms was open for seven years. For this rule, the ATF provided only a 120-day grace period, which ended on May 31st, 2023. Only 250,000 pistols were registered during the compliant period – an 8% compliance rate, at most.
For over a decade, millions of lawful gun owners have used these common braces with the ATF assuring them that attaching a stabilizing brace would not alter the classification of their firearm. The Supreme Court has affirmed that only Congress carries the authority to define what conduct does or does not carry criminal penalties. While an agency may at times issue interpretations of unclear laws that Congress has passed, Congress clearly defined what constitutes a short-barreled rifle – that definition does not include a stabilizing brace attached to a pistol - https://moran.house.gov/UploadedFil...r_to_ATF_re_Grace_Period_Extension_6.8.23.pdf
Director Dettelbach,
We write with deep concerns regarding the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosive’s (“ATF”) recently published major rule entitled: “Factoring Criteria for Firearms with an Attached Stabilizing Brace” hereinafter referred to as the “Rule” and its implementation. This rule, which reclassifies millions of pistols into “short-barreled rifles” under the National Firearms Act (NFA), is troublesome on multiple fronts. The Rule contradicts the ATF’s prior determination made during the Obama Administration, on which millions of gunowners have relied over the past decade. The Rule has also been enjoined by two federal district courts, but these injunctions are not nationwide injunctions. It’s only fair that all similarly situated persons be treated the same even if they are not expressly covered by these injunctions until, at the very least, the legal issue is resolved by the courts. Furthermore, the Rule includes the 120-day grace period for lawful gun owners to register their lawfully purchased pistols as “short-barreled rifles” with the ATF. This grace period was well short of previous grace periods instituted in cases where a gun was reclassified under the NFA.
To that end, we call on you to rescind this Rule which would make felons of millions of law-abiding Americans. In issuing this Rule, the ATF has abused its rulemaking authority by criminalizing a piece of plastic that assists users in operating firearms with more precision – an action which directly opposes its 2012 determination that stabilizing braces do not automatically subject pistols to regulation as “firearms” under the National Firearms Act. Furthermore, we call on you to extend the grace period for covered gun owners to register their firearms with your agency. The shortened grace period for the pistol brace rule will ultimately lead to less compliance and the risk of turning millions of lawful firearms owners felons overnight, including military servicemembers and others stationed abroad for extended periods of times. Congressional offices already received reports of at least one instance where a military service-member deployed overseas is unable to register their firearm back home, and thus, under this ruling, will be now labeled as a felon while defending American interests abroad.
The last time ATF sought to reclassify a firearm was in 1994, when the USAS-12, Striker 12, and Streetsweeper shotguns were reclassified as “destructive devices” under the NFA. The covered grace period for these firearms to be registered lasted until 2001. Your agencies’ registration period represents a 6 year and 8 months difference in registration grace periods from the last time firearms were reclassified and forced to be registered.
It is apparent that the ATF has not done enough to communicate to and educate the general public on these rule changes and the potential consequences of not being in compliance with the new requirements. Millions of lawful firearms owners are seemingly unaware that overnight they became felons. We are extremely concerned about ATF’s decision to not allow for more time to educate the general public on the new compliance for this rule, which leads us to speculate whether ATF instituted a shortened timeline by design.
Once the Biden Administration gave the order to go through with this ill-advised policy, ATF gave an extremely shortened timeline for gun owners to comply with its overreaching Rule. Congressional Republicans made clear through numerous hearings, letters, and comments that we strongly disagree with the Biden Administration’s attempts to carry out the pistol brace rule and ATF’s overreach in attempting to make laws without Congress.
For the sake of law-abiding firearms owners across the country and Americans serving overseas, we call on you to extend the timeline for grace period registrations for lawful gun owners to fall into compliance with the ATF Pistol Brace Ruling.
Please answer the below questions by June 29, 2023:
- What was the impetus for the grace period to only be 120 days?
- Did the White House have any input on how long the registration period would be? If so, please provide all documents and communications concerning this decision.
- What efforts were made by the ATF to inform gun owners of the Pistol Brace rule and the risks of noncompliance?
- Has the ATF undergone efforts to accommodate military service-members stationed overseas on the compliance of the Rule?
- Will you extend the grace period to assure lawful gun owners, including those stationed overseas for extended periods of time, are not classified as felons?
- How many firearms were registered within the 120-day grace period?
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Nathaniel Moran
Sam Graves, Lance Gooden, Dusty Johnson, Carlos Gimenez, Mike Johnson, Andrew Clyde, Adrian Smith, Richard Hudson, Diana Harshbarger, John R. Moolenaar, Andy Biggs, Larry Bucshon, M.D., Ryan Zinke, Jeff Duncan, Clay Higgins, Ralph Norman, Dan Crenshaw, Cliff Bentz, Julia Letlow, Chuck Edwards, Glenn “GT” Thompson, Robert J. Wittman, Tim Walberg, Pete Sessions, August Pfluger, Aaron Bean, Jodey Arrington, Guy Reschenthaler, Brian Babin, D.D.S., David Rouzer, H. Morgan Griffith, Morgan Luttrell, Roger Williams Wesley Hunt, Brad R. Wenstrup, D.P.M., Andy Barr, Jake LaTurner
OP
OP
LiveLife
Member
Repost from 6/16/23 - Update to Congressional effort to reverse ATF pistol brace rule - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/17-states-join-goa-gof-and-sue-atf’s-new-firearms-rule-on-80-percent-kits.908730/page-3#post-12647627
House approved the legislation in 219-210 vote, sending it to the Senate. Two Republicans, Thomas Kean Jr. (N.J.) and Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.) voted against the legislation, while two Democrats, Jared Golden (Maine) and Mary Sattler Peltola (Alaska), supported the measure - https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4048379-house-passes-pistol-brace-legislation/
Rep. Clyde's Resolution to Strike Down ATF's Unconstitutional Pistol Brace Rule Passes House with Bipartisan Support - https://clyde.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=897
"Every day, millions of Americans — including many service-disabled veterans — rely on stabilizing braces to exercise their Second Amendment freedoms. Yet through the ATF’s rule, the Biden Administration is attempting to circumvent Congress’ sole legislative authority by using executive fiat to turn these law-abiding gun owners into criminals for simply attaching this beneficial brace to their firearm.
By passing H.J.Res. 44 today, the House has sent a resounding message to both the judicial system and the nation that it firmly rejects the ATF’s unconstitutional rule and executive overreach, unapologetically defends service-disabled veterans’ unalienable right to keep and bear arms, and refuses to back down in the fight to protect all Americans’ Second Amendment liberties. I thank Rep. Richard Hudson for co-leading this vital effort with me, and I applaud our colleagues for joining us in taking a stand against the ATF’s brazen overreach and unlawful pistol brace rule.
It’s now time for the Senate to follow suit by swiftly passing H.J.Res. 44 — sending this essential legislation to the White House and forcing the President to choose between defending one of our greatest natural rights or intentionally attempting to disarm our nation and dismantle our Second Amendment freedoms."
House approved the legislation in 219-210 vote, sending it to the Senate. Two Republicans, Thomas Kean Jr. (N.J.) and Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.) voted against the legislation, while two Democrats, Jared Golden (Maine) and Mary Sattler Peltola (Alaska), supported the measure - https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4048379-house-passes-pistol-brace-legislation/
Rep. Clyde's Resolution to Strike Down ATF's Unconstitutional Pistol Brace Rule Passes House with Bipartisan Support - https://clyde.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=897
"Every day, millions of Americans — including many service-disabled veterans — rely on stabilizing braces to exercise their Second Amendment freedoms. Yet through the ATF’s rule, the Biden Administration is attempting to circumvent Congress’ sole legislative authority by using executive fiat to turn these law-abiding gun owners into criminals for simply attaching this beneficial brace to their firearm.
By passing H.J.Res. 44 today, the House has sent a resounding message to both the judicial system and the nation that it firmly rejects the ATF’s unconstitutional rule and executive overreach, unapologetically defends service-disabled veterans’ unalienable right to keep and bear arms, and refuses to back down in the fight to protect all Americans’ Second Amendment liberties. I thank Rep. Richard Hudson for co-leading this vital effort with me, and I applaud our colleagues for joining us in taking a stand against the ATF’s brazen overreach and unlawful pistol brace rule.
It’s now time for the Senate to follow suit by swiftly passing H.J.Res. 44 — sending this essential legislation to the White House and forcing the President to choose between defending one of our greatest natural rights or intentionally attempting to disarm our nation and dismantle our Second Amendment freedoms."
OP
OP
LiveLife
Member
Repost from 6/16/23 - Update to Mock v Garland - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/17-states-join-goa-gof-and-sue-atf’s-new-firearms-rule-on-80-percent-kits.908730/page-3#post-12639857
Congress demands ATF director answer additional pistol brace rule questions by June 29 in a new letter
Interestingly, 5th Circuit has scheduled 60 minutes of oral argument to begin on Thursday, June 29, 2023, at 10:00 am in the En Banc Courtroom for Mock v Garland.
FPC opening brief - https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fi...iffs-Appellants'_Opening_Brief.pdf?1686006917
ATF opening brief - https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fi..._v_Garland_Brief_for_Appellees.pdf?1686930528
Congress demands ATF director answer additional pistol brace rule questions by June 29 in a new letter
Interestingly, 5th Circuit has scheduled 60 minutes of oral argument to begin on Thursday, June 29, 2023, at 10:00 am in the En Banc Courtroom for Mock v Garland.
FPC opening brief - https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fi...iffs-Appellants'_Opening_Brief.pdf?1686006917
ATF opening brief - https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fi..._v_Garland_Brief_for_Appellees.pdf?1686930528
OP
OP
LiveLife
Member
Repost from 6/19/23 - For those who want to listen in on the oral arguments - https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-information/court-calendars/Details/1669/
NOTE: It's 10 AM Central Daylight Time (So 11 AM EDT and 8 AM PDT)
2. Click on this link to listen live to an oral argument: En Banc Courtroom. (Note, this link is active only during the hearing.) If the live stream is not functioning properly during the hearing, call 504-310-7804 to report the problem.
3. Click on this link to listen to a recording of the argument after the hearing: Oral Argument Recordings. (Recordings are posted shortly after the hearing.)
NOTE: It's 10 AM Central Daylight Time (So 11 AM EDT and 8 AM PDT)
2. Click on this link to listen live to an oral argument: En Banc Courtroom. (Note, this link is active only during the hearing.) If the live stream is not functioning properly during the hearing, call 504-310-7804 to report the problem.
3. Click on this link to listen to a recording of the argument after the hearing: Oral Argument Recordings. (Recordings are posted shortly after the hearing.)
OP
OP
LiveLife
Member
Repost from 6/29/23 - Oral arguments presented for Mock v Garland.
You can re-listen to the oral arguments here - https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/23/23-10319_6-29-2023.mp3
You can re-listen to the oral arguments here - https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/23/23-10319_6-29-2023.mp3
OP
OP
LiveLife
Member
Repost from 6/29/23 -
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, just a layperson posting on THR.
After getting through a bunch of questions on definitions of what is and what is not, brace vs stock, shoulderable surface area, etc., I thought FPC attorney presented a good argument of what is "in common use" and pistol brace being not "dangerous". Point was made there are over 3 million pistol braces and original intent of pistol brace was to improve aim of pistols with initial support of ATF.
I thought it was interesting that judges focused on and FPC attorney elaborated that pistol brace manufacturers like Sig Sauer approached ATF and obtained approval letters prior to manufacture and millions of customers bought pistol braces "legally" after ATF determined pistols with braces were OK. Judges were focused on how ATF initially deemed adding pistol braces did not make a SBR but later changed that determination.
When ATF approval letters were mentioned, one judge really wanted to see a sample picture of pistol brace manufactured under the ATF approval letter and this may be one of key factors for the case that ATF did indeed issue approval letters for pistol brace because some criteria was utilized to make that determination.
Much of what were argued were from the briefs and I didn't pay too much attention to them but was more interested in what the judges' questions were and what they focused on.
Ex FPC attorney discuss today's Mock v Garland arguments
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, just a layperson posting on THR.
After getting through a bunch of questions on definitions of what is and what is not, brace vs stock, shoulderable surface area, etc., I thought FPC attorney presented a good argument of what is "in common use" and pistol brace being not "dangerous". Point was made there are over 3 million pistol braces and original intent of pistol brace was to improve aim of pistols with initial support of ATF.
I thought it was interesting that judges focused on and FPC attorney elaborated that pistol brace manufacturers like Sig Sauer approached ATF and obtained approval letters prior to manufacture and millions of customers bought pistol braces "legally" after ATF determined pistols with braces were OK. Judges were focused on how ATF initially deemed adding pistol braces did not make a SBR but later changed that determination.
When ATF approval letters were mentioned, one judge really wanted to see a sample picture of pistol brace manufactured under the ATF approval letter and this may be one of key factors for the case that ATF did indeed issue approval letters for pistol brace because some criteria was utilized to make that determination.
Much of what were argued were from the briefs and I didn't pay too much attention to them but was more interested in what the judges' questions were and what they focused on.
Ex FPC attorney discuss today's Mock v Garland arguments
OP
OP
LiveLife
Member
NRA Files Suit Against ATF and DOJ Over “Pistol Brace Rule” in NRA v ATF (Pistol brace rule) - https://www.nraila.org/articles/20230703/nra-files-suit-against-atf-and-doj-over-pistol-brace-rule
- NRA filed a lawsuit against the ATF, DOJ, ATF Director Dettelbach, and US AG Garland in opposition to the unlawful “pistol brace rule.” - https://shared.nrapvf.org/sharedmedia/1511710/complaint-file-stamped.pdf
- Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District, Dallas Division, the lawsuit is the NRA’s latest challenge to the rule regarding stabilizing braces.
- The lawsuit exposes the failings of the new rule – which subjects law-abiding gun owners to penalties, fines, and potential prison sentences for the use of an otherwise legal plastic apparatus on some firearms.
- NRA argues the rule is unconstitutional, as the ATF reverses its long-standing position that pistol braces do not transform pistols into rifles subject to onerous registration and taxation requirements under the National Firearms Act.
- Previously, the NRA obtained clarification of multiple aspects of ATF’s proposed rule, including: 1) that braces removed from firearms do not necessarily have to be destroyed or altered in a way that prevents them from being reattached to a firearm; and 2) that imported pistols with stabilizing braces do not necessarily need to be destroyed or surrendered.
- As explained in the NRA’s Complaint, many of its members are being irreparably harmed by the Final Rule because they are forced to modify their firearms, destroy them, register them, or surrender them to the federal government under threat of criminal prosecution. Millions of these devices are used by gun owners across the nation – particularly disabled veterans who need braces to safely use a pistol.
old lady new shooter
Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2015
- Messages
- 30,625
I like this Hageman, hadn't seen this clip before but together with others I've seen she seems quite sharp.
And thank you for separating the threads, much better.
Armybrat
Member
She totally de-pantsed that bumbling bureaucrat for everyone to see.
He should be imprisoned for trying to overthrow the Constitution.
old lady new shooter
Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2015
- Messages
- 30,625
Gaetz and I think another rep are planning to use the Holman rule to defund him.
herrwalther
Member
- Joined
- May 1, 2013
- Messages
- 8,130
So does this mean we can put braces back on or would waiting longer be safest?
OP
OP
LiveLife
Member
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, just a random layperson poster on THR
If you are not covered by the Preliminary Injunctions, I would wait.
To me, if you are covered by the various Preliminary Injunctions, then you are good.
If you are not covered by the Preliminary Injunctions, I would wait.
Sistema1927
Member
Maybe this has been answered elsewhere, but my question is:
What happens to those 250K approved Form 1 tax waived registrations if the Final Rule is invalidated? Each of those forms says "Approved pursuant to ATF Final Rule 2021R-08F".
One would then have an approved Form 1, but the basis for the approval would have been thrown out. Will these owners then automatically become felons, especially if they have replaced the brace with a stock?
What happens to those 250K approved Form 1 tax waived registrations if the Final Rule is invalidated? Each of those forms says "Approved pursuant to ATF Final Rule 2021R-08F".
One would then have an approved Form 1, but the basis for the approval would have been thrown out. Will these owners then automatically become felons, especially if they have replaced the brace with a stock?
OP
OP
LiveLife
Member
This thread isn't concerned with the ATF form as focus is on the protection under the various Preliminary Injunctions and eventual outcome of court rulings.
You can perhaps pose the question on this thread - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/brace-registration.919616/
Or this thread - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/braced-pistol-stamp-watch-thread.915513/
Sistema1927
Member
Your thread, your scope, but I would have thought that this would be a very real ramification arising from the lawsuits that you are documenting.
OP
OP
LiveLife
Member
This thread discussion could be significant topic of discussion related to 2A not just regarding a "piece of plastic" or ATF regulatory "SBR" compliance by registration but whether 5th Circuit for Mock case/Supreme Court will apply the same treatment done to First Amendment in expanding protection to "modern" forms of free speech like email/text to Second Amendment's "modernization" to include pistol braces (And 80% lowers, bump stock with AW/magazine being "modern" types of arms closely following).
And more specifically, the issue of Chevon deference is at play as Supreme Court reviews another case that may be the end of executive agency overreach not authorized by Congress. (And if we had more pro-2A Senate and White House, H.J. Res. 44 would have passed the Senate/signed into law and ATF's Final Rule on pistol brace would have been nullified)
So for this thread discussion, ATF's offer of "tax stamp" waived registration of "SBR" is not really on topic and I believe can be better answered by the NFA subforum - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?forums/nfa-firearms-and-accessories.58/
I think many following this thread would have joined various 2A organizations as named plaintiffs to be included under the Preliminary Injunction protection.
For those who chose to register their "pistols" with pistol braces with ATF under the NFA regulations, questions regarding legality of now registered SBRs, IMO, are better addressed by the NFA subforum as I am not an expert on NFA issues.
Out of respect for you and other THR members, I will give a stab and provide my best guess as a layperson.
If 5th Circuit/Supreme Court rules pistol brace rule unconstitutional, then pistol brace becomes legal to own and use for "pistols".
As to "short barrel rifle" registration, perhaps ATF would come up with a process to reverse registered pistol braced SBRs that were originally "pistols". And maybe some may choose to keep the SBR registration because now they can use non-pistol brace/rifle stocks - https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/once-firearm-registered-short-barreled-rifle-sbr-can-i-removechange-“stabilizing-brace”
Once the firearm is registered as a short-barreled rifle (SBR) can I remove/change the “stabilizing brace” or attach an item marketed as a stock? If so, am I required to notify ATF in advance?
Yes, once the firearm is registered as an SBR, you can change out the “brace” device or stock for a different brace or stock. You do not need to contact ATF/NFA because changing the brace/stock does not change the configuration of the SBR. However, if the length of the firearm has changed you will need to notify the NFA Division.
Yes, once the firearm is registered as an SBR, you can change out the “brace” device or stock for a different brace or stock. You do not need to contact ATF/NFA because changing the brace/stock does not change the configuration of the SBR. However, if the length of the firearm has changed you will need to notify the NFA Division.
Last edited:
OP
OP
LiveLife
Member
You are welcome.Wow! That took a LOT OF WORK, thank you very much
I do hope pistol brace rule cases post Bruen ruling embark on a new age of pro-2A rulings for bump stock, 80% receivers, AW/magazine, etc. in expanding "modern" types of arms in the footsteps of First Amendment expanding protection for "modern" forms of free speech as in email/text, etc.
And seeing Supreme Court make good on Second Amendment not being a "second class right" during my retirement will be heart warming knowing 2A protection will carry on to future generations. Who knows, perhaps in 50-100 years, future Supreme Court will be looking at expanding 2A protection to even more modern laser/energy/disruptor pulse weapons that could reach lethal levels.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
