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: 5805
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: Sat Jul 01, 2023 6:08 pm can a moderator please delete my post above this one?
Got it.
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: 4791
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 »

5th circuit rules against the ATF in pistol brace case, sending it back to lower court.

https://thereload.com/fifth-circuit-say ... -unlawful/
Much of the Fifth Circuit panel’s issue with the rule stems from how the ATF went about implementing it. While the agency offered a proposed rule and took public comments as required under the APA, the panel accused the ATF of ignoring the overwhelmingly negative response and adopting a final rule entirely different from the proposed one without warning. It found that when the agency wholesale removed a point system for determining whether a braced gun was an SBR or a pistol, the result was to create an entirely new rule.

“[N]owhere in the Proposed Rule did the ATF give notice that it was considering getting rid of the Worksheet for a vaguer test,” Judge Smith, a Reagan appointee, wrote for the majority. “Instead, the ‘Comments Sought’ section of the Proposed Rule requested only ‘additional criteria that should be considered’ and comments on whether the ATF ‘selected the most appropriate criteria.’ Proposed Rule at 30850. Removing all objective criteria operates a rug-pull on the public.”

It said the agency should have started over on the months-long rulemaking process if it thought the proposal was untenable after receiving feedback. Instead, the court accused the ATF of adopting a rule that is impossible for the people it casts legal jeopardy over to understand.

“Under the Final Rule, it is nigh impossible for a regular citizen to determine what constitutes a braced pistol, and outside of the sixty contemporaneous adjudications that the ATF released, whether a specified braced pistol requires NFA registration,” Judge Smith wrote. “In particular, the requirements involving analysis of third parties’ actions, such as the ‘manufacturer’s direct and indirect marketing and promotional materials,’ and ‘nformation demonstrating the likely use of the weapon in the general community,’ Final Rule at 6480, would hold citizens criminally liable for the actions of others, who are likely unknown, unaffiliated, and uncontrollable by the person being regulated.”

The panel further castigated the ATF for arguing that its rule does not necessarily reclassify all braced guns. They noted the agency didn’t provide a single example of a braced gun that wouldn’t be an SBR under the rule.


So when it comes to accuracy, at least according to this Obama appointee, the only hands that matter are criminal hands. The thing is, criminals generally don't care about accuracy, they just spray rounds hoping to hit as many innocent people as people. For example, look at the glock switch.
It is the good guy/gal defenders that care about accuracy, as they want to shoot the criminal without accidentally shooting an innocent person.

Judge Stephen A. Higginson, an Obama appointee, dissented. He argued the ATF was within its power to issue the rule and that it went through the process correctly. He also argued that braced guns are dangerous and unusual.

“I disagree that these braces are, in relevant regard, ‘safety-improving modifications,'” he wrote. “Increased concealability and accuracy, at least in the hands of killers, is not ‘safe’—it is lethal.”

The panel returned the case to the judge who initially denied a preliminary injunction against the rule. They asked him to conduct fact-finding and build a record on the merits. They noted it was too early for them to issue an injunction, especially a nationwide one, as the plaintiffs had requested.

But they also noted that nationwide injunctions are sometimes merited, mainly if the plaintiffs in the case are scattered across the country.

“Still, in certain circumstances, nationwide relief is appropriate and may be necessary for the benefit of all parties,” Judge Smith wrote. “In Feds for Medical Freedom, for example, the en banc court permitted a nationwide injunction because the organization’s membership numbered thousands, and the members were scattered nationwide. In those circumstances, we reasoned that ‘limiting the relief to only those before [the court] would prove unwieldy and would only cause more confusion.’ Moreover, injunctions should be crafted to ‘provide complete relief to the plaintiffs.'”

The Fifth Circuit panel gave the district judge 60 days to issue a ruling on the scope of the injunction.
Ring
Posts: 1115
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 9:54 am
Location: medina ohio

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

Post by Ring »

“Increased concealability"
LOL...
User avatar
FormerNavy
Posts: 2343
Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2008 3:19 pm
Location: Southwest Ohio

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

Post by FormerNavy »

Ring wrote: Tue Aug 22, 2023 7:29 am
“Increased concealability"
LOL...
Well I personally prefer to appendix carry my AR pistol with brace. I find the AK pistol with braces works better in a small of the back carry profile though. :roll:
M-Quigley
Posts: 4791
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 Federal Judge finally rules against the ATF on the pistol brace rule, not just on procedural grounds but on 2nd amendment grounds.
He detailed the ATF's arguments and why they were not valid. He also made the argument that pistol braces make a pistol more accurate and better accuracy is safer for the majority of people who use the pistols for lawful purposes, which is far greater than the extremely small number of people who misuse them. This is a point that my friend, who on Sundays guards the outside of a large church with one, would definitely attest to. He can't legally use an AR rifle in his car but he can legally use his AR pistol and isn't at a disadvantage against a mass murderer with a rifle. He is a member of one of the organizations affected by the rulings.

This is only a court decision only for members of certain gun rights groups members who sued however. It's likely this will go to the US Supreme court, so it's a victory but not the final victory. Allegedly if you're a member of the FPC, GOA, and maybe the SAF you are covered, even nationwide, according to the clarification. Also one particular business and all they're suppliers, customers and family members. If however you are just a member of the puny NRA you're out of luck I guess. I haven't been able to confirm yet if they got a ruling, different judge, different circuit.

The link on the ammoland site referencing GOA is not a final ruling like what the FPC got but a continuation of the TRO, until the case is settled once and for all, which won't be until it gets to SCOTUS, unless ATF decides not to take it there. If they don't it's going to mean one set of rules for members of select gun rights groups and another for the average Joe or Jane or NRA member.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4QFgS6 ... eRefresh=1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N559U1FSobA

https://www.ammoland.com/2023/10/goas-i ... z8HkCTfT1f

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGXAzoVEKls
M-Quigley
Posts: 4791
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 »

One additional point I forgot to make in the previous post. This ruling, if it is allowed to stand, will impact not just AR pistols with braces, but all AR's period, and all in plain common sense language. The judge took the Heller and Bruen decisions regarding common use and basically said that if millions of people own them they are in common use, and are protected under the 2nd Amendment. This includes AR pistols because there are also millions of them owned. He also suggested that if pistols and rifles are covered by the 2nd amendment why not something in between? In his critique of braces he also included stocks, even though stock equipped pistols are restricted. The ATF didn't want to ban braced pistols, just restrict them like pistols with stocks. He basically asked why a pistol with a brace or stock is restricted, since they are not illegal, and there is no special difference in the background check to own one. The main difference is paying a $200 tax and paying a tax does not make the gun or the owner safer. Plus, you shouldn't put a tax on a right.

He did admit that pistols with braces have been used in an extremely small number of crimes, but also said that since millions of people own them and haven't committed crimes, owning them is not a danger to the public. If they were inherently dangerous to the general public, you would have a lot more than the extremely small number of cases over the last 12 years that the ATF documented. The judge didn't make this next point, it is mine.
Even using on the ATF numbers of AR pistols, which is probably half or a third the real number according to some experts, the odds of a mass shooter using a braced pistol is almost 1.5 million to one.

Unfortunately SCOTUS may not want to stand up for the 2nd amendment arguments, but fortunately this Judge also included the reasons why the brace rule violates the APA, so if a Justice doesn't want to stand up for gun rights they have the option of ruling against the ATF based on the APA.

My concern with SCOTUS is what if they refuse to hear the case? Granted, it will be a win for the plantiffs but maybe only those plantiff's.
M-Quigley
Posts: 4791
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 »

Another update: a different judge rules against ATF, braces now allegedly okay for everyone nationwide, not just FPC members. :)

They could appeal it to the circuit court but that would be the same circuit court that ordered a TRO in the first place because the court said the plantiffs were likely to prevail. If they appeal it to SCOTUS they don't even have to rule on it, just refuse to rule on it. :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WoUUVvSLBE
M-Quigley
Posts: 4791
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 court case that Biden's ATF refuses to let die

"Clear!" Zapp. :roll:

Some people probably thought the pistol brace rule was over and done. Wrong. Now the ATF is appealing their losses again, and this time they have added a new twist. They're now claiming that an act called the AIA prohibits the plantiff's from trying to stop the ATF from collecting taxes under the NFA law. :roll: The obvious thing (even to a non lawyer like me) is that the plantiff's never argued about whether or not the ATF has the authority to collect taxes on NFA items, it was whether the brace that was designed so handicapped people can shoot pistols like the AR one handed even falls under the NFA at all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtW6B4dprOk


"It's an assault weapon designed to kill people, to defend America, to defend people." Joe Biden speaking at Democrat rally.
Post Reply