ATF pistol brace rule lawsuits

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't think they should be pro or anti anything. They should apply the constitution as written.
That's what they were "supposed" to do. ;)

Like the elected representatives were "supposed" to be part-time law makers to carry out intent of "We the People" but many have become lifelong "politicians" carrying out agendas for special interests. 😆

To me judges being "pro" Bill of Rights amendment, ALL OF THEM, are being true and "Original" to founders' wishes for this nation.

Long live the Republic. 👍

The constitution as written is pro 2nd amendment.
That's how I see it also, along with justice Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh ... and even Barrett, Roberts and now justice Jackson. :oops:
 
Update to Mock v Garland (ATF pistol brace ban) and other consolidated pistol brace rule cases - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/atf-pistol-brace-rule-lawsuits.920838/post-12950632

while FPC asked 5th Circuit 3 judge panel their review of preliminary injunction request is no longer needed, State of Texas (Likely fueled by judge O'Connor's ruling and perhaps bump stock and forced reset trigger rulings against ATF) asked for more argument time.

Now that all the pistol brace cases have been consolidated, things ... Depending on what ATF decides to do next
ATF is asking the 5th Circuit to reconsider district court judge O'Connor's nationwide vacature (Voiding) of pistol brace rule making argument to consider recent Rahimi decision as new authority for government regulation.

Ex FPC attorney Anthony Miranda discuss Mock and consolidated pistol brace rule cases.
 
Wasn't there an 8th Circuit decision vacating the Rule today as well?
Yes.

Update to FRAC v Garland (ATF pistol brace ban / Backed by 25 states) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...ace-rule-lawsuits.920838/page-5#post-12859826

8th Circuit finds pistol brace rule likely illegal - https://www.reuters.com/legal/gover...brace-restrictions-likely-illegal-2024-08-09/
  • 8th Circuit found ATF pistol brace rule is likely illegal
  • 2-1 panel of 8th Circuit found 25 state attorney general supported case was likely to succeed because ATF had not clearly explained what products would be covered by the rule, making it arbitrary and capricious
  • The decision comes year after 5th Circuit reached the same conclusion in another case by gun rights groups challenging the rule.
  • West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, who led the challenge for the states said, "This rule is egregious and is an obvious effort to undermine Americans' Second Amendment rights," ... referring to the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of the right to bear arms.
  • Pistol braces were first marketed in 2012 as a way of attaching a pistol to shooter's forearm, stabilizing it and making it easier to use for disabled people. A disabled army veteran, Richard Cicero, is also a plaintiff in the case.
  • The states and other plaintiffs sued ATF in February 2023. U.S. District Judge Daniel Hovland in North Dakota declined to block the rule while he considered their lawsuit, saying they were not likely to succeed because ATF had adequately explained its rulemaking process.
  • Circuit judge L. Steven Grasz, however, wrote on Friday that the ATF's multi-factor test for evaluating braces, taking into account design, marketing and community use, was "arbitrary and capricious because it allows the ATF to arrive at whatever conclusion it wishes." The panel ordered Hovland to reconsider his decision.
 
Adding to post #157 regarding FRAC v Garland (ATF pistol brace ban / Backed by 25 states) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...ace-rule-lawsuits.920838/page-7#post-12957555

Coalition Of States Wins Case Against Biden’s Pistol Brace Rule - https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/coalition-of-states-wins-case-against-bidens-pistol-brace-rule/
  • Biden’s ATF lost case against Final Rule redefining braced pistols as “short-barreled rifles” in Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, Inc. v. Garland
  • 8th Circuit found the pistol brace rule to be unconstitutional and enjoined enforcement of the Final Rule
  • Lawsuit was filed by a coalition of 25 states, a stabilizing brace manufacturer, a firearms manufacturer as well as a number of other entities
  • In the ruling, the court wrote: “The plaintiffs—a stabilizing-brace manufacturer, a firearm manufacturer, a gun association, an individual owner of braced weapons, and twenty-five states (collectively, the Coalition)—sued to enjoin the Final Rule, arguing it exceeds the ATF’s statutory authority under the NFA and GCA and is arbitrary and capricious. The district court denied the Coalition’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The Coalition appeals that denial. We conclude the Coalition is likely to succeed on the merits of its arbitrary-and-capricious challenge, so we reverse and remand to the district court.”
  • One bone of contention ... was the lack of any standard within the rule that would determine whether a braced pistol could be shouldered ... “Thus, the Coalition is likely to succeed on the merits of its argument that this step is arbitrary and capricious; the ATF ‘has articulated no standard whatsoever for determining’ when a stabilizing brace’s rear surface area would allow the shouldering of a weapon,” the ruling stated. “That the regulated parties wish to see more specific metrics does not mean they wish to skirt or circumvent the law, as ATF insinuates. They may simply wish to comply with the law, by producing or equipping stabilizing braces that do not have a rear surface area that allows for shoulder firing a weapon.”
  • Officials from the states forming the coalition ... “As Attorney General, I will defend the Constitution every single time, especially when the Biden-Harris Administration moves to eradicate Missourians’ Second Amendment rights,” Andrew Bailey, Missouri attorney general ... “The Constitution was meant to be a floor, not a ceiling, for our God-given rights. We will continue to do everything in our power to safeguard Missourians’ right to keep and bear arms against encroachment by unelected federal bureaucrats.
  • Senator Kevin Cramer, from ... North Dakota ... “Today’s ruling by the Eighth Circuit is a major victory for the United States Constitution and another major blow to this overbearing federal bureaucracy, particularly the Biden-Harris administration that tramples on our rights every single day,” ... “Congratulations to Attorney General Drew Wrigley on carrying this ball across the finish line for law-abiding North Dakotans. It is an honor to be able to block for him, just a little bit, and for our citizens. Way to go, Team Wrigley and North Dakota, and all the other states that stood up for our Constitution, for the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens of North Dakota and the great country that we are a part of.”
 
Last edited:
Adding to post #158 regarding FRAC v Garland (ATF pistol brace ban / Backed by 25 states) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/atf-pistol-brace-rule-lawsuits.920838/post-12958444

Ex FPC attorney Anthony Miranda discuss FRAC 8th Circuit win against ATF supported by 25 states:
  • Huge win against ATF and their attempt to expand the definition of what is an SBR
  • 8th Circuit just issued a decision in a pistol brace case and they ruled that the pistol brace rule is invalid because of the two-step analysis that the ATF tried to use in their new rule
  • 8th Circuit found that attempt by the ATF and their redefinition of SBR and certain braced pistols as SBR was in fact arbitrary and capricious
  • 8th Circuit found that ATF's rule was just over broad that the ATF did not define what qualifies as rear surface area as a violation of the rule and also the ATF did not properly define what marketing and community use is
  • Because of that, they found that the lower court should have ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and issued a preliminary injunction preventing the enforcement of the Pistol Brace Final Rule
  • This case is a FRAC case which was filed by FRAC along with SB Tactical, one of the largest makers and sellers of braces joined by 25 states
  • District court denied initial preliminary injunction request which was appealed to the 8th Circuit and now a three judge panel ruled that the lower court should have granted the preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their claims
  • 8th Circuit has found that the pistol brace rule is in fact arbitrary and capricious
  • We've talked about how there were multiple cases out of the 5th Circuit like Mock and Britto cases where district court judge O'Connor who issued a final merits decision and ultimately he vacated the rule in its entirety nationwide
  • Judge O'Connor also found that the ATF rule violated the APA because the Final Rule was not a logical outgrowth from The Proposal rule
  • You may recall that there was this thing called the worksheet 4999 and it had a point system and a bunch of tests in analysis where you would look at a configuration of certain firearms with braces on them. You would add up point points and if you got a certain point threshold well then under the worksheet, your specific firearm configuration would be deemed an SBR
  • But then when the ATF put in place their Final Rule, they removed that worksheet and they moved to a more broad and vague standard, you know vague analysis, essentially giving themselves a ton of leeway on how to actually define certain things as SBR
  • Right now both the Mock and Britto cases there has been appeal up to the 5th Circuit and cases have been consolidated and a hearing set to take place I believe in early August in front of the 5th Circuit on both the preliminary injunctions
  • But a final merits decision was issued by judge O'Connor so now going back to FRAC case, the 8th Circuit was trailing behind the 5th Circuit
  • It was a few months ago that the 8th Circuit heard arguments in this pistol brace lawsuit and a lot of the indications were that the 8th Circuit really didn't want to be the first ones to deal with this issue
  • They were letting the 5th Circuit kind of play out to see what they wanted to do, let the lower courts there in the 5th Circuit determine what they wanted to do and then the 8th Circuit was going to act
  • So they heard arguments and my indication listening to the arguments in the 8th Circuit was that we would at least get a 2 to 1 decision in our favor striking down the rule and that's exactly what happened
  • In their decision, the 8th Circuit found a couple major issues with what the ATF did with their pistol brace rule
  • First and foremost they only reviewed whether or not the plaintiffs showed that they were likely to succeed on the merits of their arguments. Now that's very important for getting a preliminary injunction and so that's really what the 8th Circuit was reviewing on appeal. The 8th Circuit found that there was a big issue with the two-step process that the ATF created in their rule which ultimately determines whether or not a certain firearm with a brace attached to it is actually an SBR
  • The ATF focuses first on whether or not there is rear surface area that can be shouldered and then second they look at whether or not there is marketing in the community or community standards that show that that attachment on this specific braced pistol is actually intended to beshoulder
  • In the opinion the 8th Circuit stated that the 25 state "Coalition" alleges this step is arbitrary and capricious because the ATF refused to include more specific metrics on the minimum surface area required for shouldering
  • We agree with the Coalition so here the 8th Circuit is finding that the ATF did not include actual measurements or standards for what is the appropriate surface area and which type of surface area would violate this rule
  • The ATF did not want to give actual numbers and here the 8th Circuit is finding that that was wrong. They go on to state that in the final rule, ATF decided it was not appropriate or necessary to specify a quantifiable metric for what constitutes surface area that allows for shouldering of the weapon nor did it plan on providing any minimum surface area which would comply with the final rule
  • Instead the ATF explained it will consider whether there is any surface area on the firearm that can be used to shoulder fire the weapon
  • So here again the 8th Circuit is pointing out how vague this standard is about surface area that can be shouldered. The ATF did not want to give any actual measurements
  • We all called for some sort of standard that was a little bit more quantifiable but the ATF wanted to leave this as broad as possible
  • They go on to say that this lack of metrics issue is compounded by the ATF acknowledging that a majority of braced weapons would have a surface area that allows a user to shoulder the weapon
  • By ATF's OWN estimation 99% of brace weapons are rifles under the NFA and GCA not just a simple majority so that's kind of the first issue that the a circuit finds with this ATF Rule
  • And then they go on to look at the six factor analysis and one of the big issues they find is with the whole community use and the marketing standard that the ATF puts in place that is very broad
  • Here the 8th Circuit states that the community use factor is even more amorphous. The ATF will consider information demonstrating the likely use of the weapon by the general community including both the manufacturer's stated intent when submitting its item for classification and use by members of the firearms industry, firearms owners and in the general community
  • One of the big issues the 8th Circuit finds with this type of process is the fact that the ATF is trying to essentially give you know intent from maybe a third party so maybe someone else is buying this item with the intent of shouldering it or maybe this item was made with the intent of being shouldered but then they're trying to say well that conduct of a third party can then be placed on how you intend to use the product and here the 8th Circuit says that's just simply not how the law operates
  • We do not give third party intent to someone else you know this rule because of that is so over broad it does not actually define anything specifically and it's trying to give intent from one party or one person to someone else
  • Based on all of that, they found that there was a likelihood of success on the merits and they are sending this case back down to the district court for a new decision in light of what they just ruled
  • Now one thing they did state in this decision which is very important is that they are not directing the lower court here on any specific scope of relief or any type of relief that the lower court should actually issue
  • 8th Circuit noted that the Moc final merit decision has happened. It vacated the rule nationwide and that is still in place so the 8th Circuit acknowledges that
  • There the Mock case vacated this rule its entirety and right now it can't really be enforced so the district court on remand might actually find that the preliminary injunction relief that is being asked for is not necessary anymore because there's a nationwide block on this rule
  • ATF is suffering huge losses they've suffered a ton of losses and again I don't feel bad for the ATF at all
 
So this still isn't settled
Mock v Garland will be heard in September at the 5th Circuit and FRAC v Garland is being remanded back down to the district court by the 8th Circuit.

But the pistol brace Final Rule was vacated in its entirety nationwide by district court judge O'Connor in his final ruling and that ruling is active nationwide right now.

Likely, regardless how 5th Circuit rules, decision will be appealed to the Supreme Court but unless 5th Circuit stays district court's ruling, ATF cannot enforce the pistol brace rule.

The FRAC case remanded back down to the district court for reconsideration with 8th Circuit's explanation will likely result in ruling against ATF so it looks like the pistol brace issue is essentially settled with Mock and consolidated cases likely to reach the Supreme Court first.
 
Adding to post #159 regarding FRAC v Garland (ATF pistol brace ban / Backed by 25 states) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/atf-pistol-brace-rule-lawsuits.920838/post-12958972

BTW, 8th Circuit ruling for reference for very detailed and comprehensive discussion of pistol brace ruling - https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca8/23-3230/23-3230-2024-08-09.pdf?ts=1723217425

ATF's Crazy Argument DESTROYED: NEW Pistol Brace RULING! 8th Circuit Shuts down ATF

Those six other factors are:
(1) Whether the weapon has a weight or length consistent with the weight or length of similarly designed rifles;​
(2) Whether the weapon has a length of pull . . . that is consistent with similarly designed rifles;​
(3) Whether the weapon is equipped with sights or a scope with eye relief that require the weapon to be fired from the shoulder in order to be used as designed;​
(4) Whether the surface area that allows the weapon to be fired from the shoulder is created by a buffer tube, receiver extension, or any other accessory, component, or other rearward attachment that is necessary for the cycle of operations;​
(5) The manufacturer’s direct and indirect marketing and promotional materials indicating the intended use of the weapon; and​
(6) Information demonstrating the likely use of the weapon in the general community.​

Different types of dgus (Defensive Gun Uses):

1. Ambush in public, street, store, into/out of car​
2. Home invasion​
3. Domestic​
4. Use in car​
5. Escalation (mutual fight)​
6. Violent mob​
7. Mass shooting​

Contents of this video:

0:00 - Intro​
1:36 - Recap​
4:56 - ATF's worksheet​
8:10 - Bottom Line​
11:23 - ATF Claims​
17:23 - Closing thoughts​
17:59 - What does this all mean?​
19:03 - Quote of the Day​
 
Last edited:
Update to Mock v Garland (ATF pistol brace ban) and other consolidated pistol brace rule cases - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...ace-rule-lawsuits.920838/page-7#post-12956181

while FPC asked 5th Circuit 3 judge panel their review of preliminary injunction request is no longer needed ...

ATF is asking the 5th Circuit to reconsider district court judge O'Connor's nationwide vacature (Voiding) of pistol brace rule making argument to consider recent Rahimi decision as new authority for government regulation.

5th Circuit rules against ATF to keep nationwide vacature (voiding) of pistol brace rule in place - https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fi...08.26_ORDER_Dismissing_Appeals.pdf?1724704266

The consolidated appeals are from orders granting or denying motions to preliminarily enjoin the enforcement of a rule issued by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. In Mock, the district court proceeded to final judgment while the appeal from its preliminary injunction order was pending. The district court’s final judgment vacated BATFE’s rule under the Administrative Procedure Act. The Government has appealed the district court’s ruling and has not moved for a stay pending appeal.​
An appeal is moot when “the preliminary injunctions no longer provide Plaintiffs ‘any effectual relief.’” ... Because the rule that Plaintiffs seek to preliminarily enjoin enforcement of has been vacated and will remain vacated at least until this court decides the new appeal in Mock, a preliminary injunction would not provide Plaintiffs with any effectual relief. We accordingly DISMISS all six of the consolidated appeals as moot.​

Ex FPC attorney Anthony Miranda discuss 5th Circuit ruling

Immediate Nationwide Block of ATF Short Barreled Rifle & Pistol Brace Rule Kept In Place - In this video I break down a recent order to dismiss and keep in place the immediate nationwide pistol brace protections
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top