AG Garland announced pistol brace rule on friday the 13th

Discussion of Firearm Politics & Legislation. This forum is now strictly limited to discussions directly related to firearms.

Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators

User avatar
JustaShooter
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 5819
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 3:08 pm
Location: Akron/Canton Area

Re: AG Garland announced pistol brace rule on friday the 13th

Post by JustaShooter »

M-Quigley wrote: Sun Apr 02, 2023 10:06 am b.t.w. if someone reads my post above and it appears I bolded the entire bottom half the post, I did not. I only bolded a few words and I went to edit to double check to see if I accidentally bolded the entire bottom half. The bottom half appears to be bolded on my screen however. :?:
Maybe it's just my computer and I'll check it with another device later.
Fixed it. The ending tags for underline and bold were scrambled together somehow, but should be good now.
Christian, Husband, Father
NRA Life Member
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
NRA Certified Pistol & Rifle Instructor

Want to become more active with OFCC and help fight for your rights? Click Here!
M-Quigley
Posts: 4824
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:06 pm
Location: Western Ohio

Re: AG Garland announced pistol brace rule on friday the 13th

Post by M-Quigley »

JustaShooter wrote: Sun Apr 02, 2023 1:27 pm
M-Quigley wrote: Sun Apr 02, 2023 10:06 am b.t.w. if someone reads my post above and it appears I bolded the entire bottom half the post, I did not. I only bolded a few words and I went to edit to double check to see if I accidentally bolded the entire bottom half. The bottom half appears to be bolded on my screen however. :?:
Maybe it's just my computer and I'll check it with another device later.
Fixed it. The ending tags for underline and bold were scrambled together somehow, but should be good now.
Thanks, appreciate it.
bignflnut
Volunteer
Volunteer
Posts: 8136
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:14 pm
Location: Under Naybob Tinfoil Bridge
Contact:

Re: AG Garland announced pistol brace rule on friday the 13th

Post by bignflnut »

5th Circuit just set the injunction on the pistol brace rule...
Minutes ago, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a preliminary injunction (download the PDF HERE) against the DOJ’s and ATF’s unconstitutional attack on firearms equipped with a pistol stabilizing brace. The lawsuit, brought by the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and other plaintiffs, paid off with this temporary injunction just days before ATF’s mandatory registration “grace period” that was set to expire on the 31st.

Don’t celebrate too soon, though! Unfortunately this temporary injunction applies only to the named plaintiffs . . . “…Preliminary Injunction Pending Appeal is GRANTED as to the Plaintiffs in this case.” It stays in effect — only for these plaintiffs — until an appeal in the case is ruled on. Stay tuned, because it’s at least a first real step and a first win, even if quite limited, in the right direction since the new ATF ruling was announced.
“It’s not that we don’t have enough scoundrels to curse; it’s that we don’t have enough good men to curse them.”–G.K. Chesterton-Illustrated London News, 3-14-1908

Republicans.Hate.You. See2020.

"Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams to Mass Militia 10-11-1798
M-Quigley
Posts: 4824
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:06 pm
Location: Western Ohio

Re: AG Garland announced pistol brace rule on friday the 13th

Post by M-Quigley »

UPDATE: The plantiffs (the FPC) asked for a clarification on the temp. injunction ruling, does it apply to only the FPC members that have their names on the suit, all members in the 5th circuit area, all members, etc. The clarification came back and allegedly all FPC members are covered under this injunction, everywhere in the US, current or future members. I'm guessing though that you actually have to be a member before some governmental agency busts your door open and kicks your dog, etc., you can't just join after you're arrested. :roll: I'm also guessing that if you do want to take advantage not having to pay $200 to have it registered as an SBR you will still have to apply before June 1st.

If you do however register it as an SBR you will be required by law to transport it the same way you would transport it in a motor vehicle as you would a rifle or shotgun in Ohio, as it would no longer be a pistol. In addition, all NFA rules apply when going out of state, like notifying ATF by their special form.
And like any NFA item, certain possession rules apply. Like for example a neighbor of mine who if he lets me handle his SMG he (or someone on the trust list) must be physically present, because I'm not listed on the trust. He can't legally even go inside his house briefly and come back, even if it's unloaded and disassembled. At least that is what I've been told is the definition of "possession" by the ATF at this time. (an hour from now it could be something else :roll: )
M-Quigley
Posts: 4824
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:06 pm
Location: Western Ohio

Re: AG Garland announced pistol brace rule on friday the 13th

Post by M-Quigley »

MORE UPDATES:

Allegedly the SAF also was granted a temporary injunction in their case, IDK who exactly it covers. A representative of USCCA put out a video 5 days ago
(before the clarification about what the FPC injunction covered) and this guy is claiming that ATF changed their guidance in an email to FFL holders about what must be done on June 1st, IF someone doesn't apply for registration as an SBR. In a Q&A session in January a ATF rep begrudgingly said when asked about can someone just remove the brace and store it away from the pistol? The answer was yes, provided it wasn't in "close proximity to the pistol."
(which ATF refused to define) This new email allegedly NOW says the brace must be destroyed if the owner wishes to continue possessing it, if they have a pistol which it can be attached to. This is in conflict with a previous SCOTUS decision on restricted parts from years ago.

I'm not an FFL and haven't seen the alleged email, but if someone at ATF said it, it might be like back in January when someone asked online about can someone who isn't on a trust is allowed to handle or fire the gun and the answer was no. That of course is incorrect or else dealers would never be allowed to rent machine guns. :roll: After getting pushback someone at ATF clarified that this was incorrect, that as long as the owner or someone on the trust was physically present that it was legal. At least I'm hoping that this is what it is, since this issue should already be settled law.

Here is a link with possibly the alleged email, and all it says is what the original rule said, which never included simply removing it and storing it away from the pistol. I think ATF doesn't want to admit that people could legally do this unless they specifically ask, like in the Jan. Q&A session. If they proactively admitted it, only an idiot would want to keep a destroyed brace if they knew they had the option to just remove it until all the court cases are over.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Firearms/comme ... ning_from/

Jump to 2:04 for the comment about destroying a brace.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NzSZP4dHbc
User avatar
JustaShooter
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 5819
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 3:08 pm
Location: Akron/Canton Area

Re: AG Garland announced pistol brace rule on friday the 13th

Post by JustaShooter »

Unless you are willing to become the test case (and if you are, more power to you), if you want to just remove the brace and wait out the court cases until this is settled, the best advice I've seen is to have a person hold the brace for you who lives at a different address and does not themselves have a pistol that the brace can fit. I don't care what they say in an email, or what the director says in their Congressional testimony, or even what they say in one of their letters, I firmly believe they will charge you under the constructive possession theory if you have both a brace and a pistol the brace can fit in the same house/apartment. And, if previous court cases are any indication, they will win...
Christian, Husband, Father
NRA Life Member
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
NRA Certified Pistol & Rifle Instructor

Want to become more active with OFCC and help fight for your rights? Click Here!
M-Quigley
Posts: 4824
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:06 pm
Location: Western Ohio

Re: AG Garland announced pistol brace rule on friday the 13th

Post by M-Quigley »

JustaShooter wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 9:23 pm Unless you are willing to become the test case (and if you are, more power to you), if you want to just remove the brace and wait out the court cases until this is settled, the best advice I've seen is to have a person hold the brace for you who lives at a different address and does not themselves have a pistol that the brace can fit. I don't care what they say in an email, or what the director says in their Congressional testimony, or even what they say in one of their letters, I firmly believe they will charge you under the constructive possession theory if you have both a brace and a pistol the brace can fit in the same house/apartment. And, if previous court cases are any indication, they will win...
Doing a search I've found cases where they lost, but then again it was the person charged that had to go thru all the stuff and get legal representation before winning against them, while the Justice Dept merely spends more tax money to do it instead of going after people that they really should be focusing on. :(

A friend of mine who had a brace on his pistol isn't taking the chance, he removed his brace and is having it stored somewhere off his property until all the court cases are settled, even though he might be covered by the temporary injunction. He has already found an acceptable workaround that does not violate the current final rule, at least for the half of one day a week that he actually needs the pistol. There is no pistol that the brace can be attached to at the location where it is stored, so it's legal for the person storing it for him, since ATF didn't ban the brace itself.
User avatar
JustaShooter
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 5819
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 3:08 pm
Location: Akron/Canton Area

Re: AG Garland announced pistol brace rule on friday the 13th

Post by JustaShooter »

M-Quigley wrote: Wed May 31, 2023 9:33 am A friend of mine who had a brace on his pistol isn't taking the chance, he removed his brace and is having it stored somewhere off his property until all the court cases are settled, even though he might be covered by the temporary injunction.
If he is in Ohio, then I think he's made a wise choice. The way I read the injunction, and the clarification, only the members of the FPC at the time the suit was originally filed, and are in the 5th Circuit, are covered. I know others read it differently, but that's my take. At most it covers all FPC members at the time the suit was filed, but taking that position is risky in my opinion.
Christian, Husband, Father
NRA Life Member
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
NRA Certified Pistol & Rifle Instructor

Want to become more active with OFCC and help fight for your rights? Click Here!
M-Quigley
Posts: 4824
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:06 pm
Location: Western Ohio

Re: AG Garland announced pistol brace rule on friday the 13th

Post by M-Quigley »

JustaShooter wrote: Wed May 31, 2023 8:53 pm
M-Quigley wrote: Wed May 31, 2023 9:33 am A friend of mine who had a brace on his pistol isn't taking the chance, he removed his brace and is having it stored somewhere off his property until all the court cases are settled, even though he might be covered by the temporary injunction.
If he is in Ohio, then I think he's made a wise choice. The way I read the injunction, and the clarification, only the members of the FPC at the time the suit was originally filed, and are in the 5th Circuit, are covered. I know others read it differently, but that's my take. At most it covers all FPC members at the time the suit was filed, but taking that position is risky in my opinion.
That's kind of the way I would be leaning too, if I was potentially affected, but I'm not a lawyer. A friend of mine who is a lawyer think an FPC member in Ohio should be okay with this ruling, but that was just his take on it and NOT legal advice. He is not currently representing anyone on a matter related to this issue. I read the news on the SAF website and their statement sounds like the Judge in that case basically mirrored the temporary injunction decision in the FPC case, (except it covers SAF members) It doesn't say it only covers SAF members in just the 5th circuit, but does say that it's not a blanket nationwide injunction.

Having read the ATF response to the request for clarification, and linking it to a Jewish friend of mine, he replied that the ATF has a lot of chutspah.
They even said that FPC members (even in the 5th circuit) shouldn't be covered because the FPC isn't a legitimate association, and that the FPC never officially denied that short barrelled rifles are covered under the NFA. (which was never what the suit is about) Based on their allegations regarding the FPC, I guess in their opinion the NRA isn't a legitimate association either. Those are just 2 examples in the filing. I don't know if I would say it's chutspah or not, it sounds to me like lawyers being lawyers. :roll: Or maybe to be a lawyer you sometimes have to have some chutspah, IDK.
I've seen a few court cases where a lawyer will say something that I might think is outrageous or over the top or unreasonable and sometimes it's successful with a certain judge. :roll:

https://www.firearmspolicy.org/mock

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firear ... 1685055808
M-Quigley
Posts: 4824
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:06 pm
Location: Western Ohio

Re: AG Garland announced pistol brace rule on friday the 13th

Post by M-Quigley »

UPDATE: A 3rd temporary preliminary injunction has been issued, this time for Gun owners of America, so now the total is 3 organizations and at least a couple of businesses that it should cover the three 5th circuit states, and maybe the members of these 3 groups members nationwide, but NOT a blanket injunction for everyone with a braced pistol.

A lawyer friend of mine is of the opinion that the ATF at this time doesn't even need to prosecute someone, they've already scored a temporary victory in the minds of many of the people who have or are thinking about getting a braced pistol. His rational is unless you're a member of one of these groups you probably get your news from the MSM or gun stores. The MSM is (for the most part) ONLY reporting what the ATF in their final rule, if you have a braced pistol you must do one of the 5 things they mentioned in writing, and simply removing the brace and storing it away from the pistol is not one of those choices. While the ATF has admitted in a Q&A session admitted that you could do this, they also said that they might get you for constructive possession, depending on where it's stored.

Most dealers, even ones that might technically be covered under the injunction, aren't going to want to sell a braced pistol, or even a brace, even though it's legal to sell by itself. I've already seen examples of this in local gun stores. They don't want to take a chance with their license.
One dealer didn't even know about the injunctions when asked and didn't care, not worth the potential legal hassle. In addition, he is no longer stocking AR or AK pistols.
Bearable
Posts: 124
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2018 9:32 pm
Location: South of I-70

Re: AG Garland announced pistol brace rule on friday the 13th

Post by Bearable »

If true Second Amendment guys are relying on the MSM for their news then they should turn in their pistol brace.
M-Quigley
Posts: 4824
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:06 pm
Location: Western Ohio

Re: AG Garland announced pistol brace rule on friday the 13th

Post by M-Quigley »

Bearable wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2023 5:55 am If true Second Amendment guys are relying on the MSM for their news then they should turn in their pistol brace.
There are a lot of gun owners that don't keep up with all the politics. For example, this guy who was interviewed by Channel 10 TV (columbus?)
He only found out about the new final rule because someone at the gun store asked him if he wanted to be interviewed by the news and prior to this he had no idea about the final rule.

In the video channel 10 claims the ATF website said that handicapped people who need the brace to shoot the pistol are not affected by the new rule,
(1:20) but I've read the new rule, and that is NOT what it says. Now maybe ATF might choose to not prosecute someone with one arm, but the rule specifically says handicapped people are NOT given an exception, and their excuse is they (ATF) are exempt from the Americans with disabilities act. This is sort of true, but not in the context in which ATF is claiming, according to some sources. It's not a blanket exception.

https://www.10tv.com/video/news/local/n ... b357180805
M-Quigley
Posts: 4824
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:06 pm
Location: Western Ohio

Re: AG Garland announced pistol brace rule on friday the 13th

Post by M-Quigley »

UPDATE: Oral arguments in the FPC case start June 29th

https://twitter.com/gunpolicy/status/16 ... 4321865729
M-Quigley
Posts: 4824
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:06 pm
Location: Western Ohio

Re: AG Garland announced pistol brace rule on friday the 13th

Post by M-Quigley »

<deleted per request-m380g>
M-Quigley
Posts: 4824
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:06 pm
Location: Western Ohio

Re: AG Garland announced pistol brace rule on friday the 13th

Post by M-Quigley »

Two things: 1, can a moderator please delete my post above this one?

2. An update on the court hearing r/t the pistol brace rule. Not a decision by the 3 judge panel, but what happened in court. Could go either way, but it looks like some of the judges could see through some of the ATF's initial weak arguments and weren't buying it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0jXtFRFjbw
Post Reply