ATF Released New Proposed Pistol Brace Rules

[Rafe]

GOA AND TEXAS AG PAXTON FILE SUIT AGAINST ATF PISTOL BRACE RULE
https://www.gunowners.org/goa-and-texas ... race-rule/

Washington, D.C. – Today, Gun Owners of America (GOA) and the Gun Owners Foundation (GOF) jointly filed a lawsuit challenging the Biden Pistol Brace Ban with Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. The suit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

Thanks. I was wondering where Texas was on that list of 25 states from your previous post.

[Grayling813]

John Lovell weighs in.

[Rafe]

Got this in an NRA update email this morning, but the article is from March 10:

Congressmen Demand Answers From the ATF
https://www.americas1stfreedom.org/cont ... m-the-atf/

In part:

In light of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) recent ventures into making laws instead of just enforcing them, two U.S. Congressmen are calling on ATF Director Steve Dettelbach to answer some questions in front of a committee in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Reps. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) are pulling no punches in demanding that Dettelbach and three other ATF officials appear before the House Judiciary Committee, which Jordan chairs. Massie is chairman of the Subcommittee on the Administrative State, Regulatory Reform and Antitrust.

According to the letter to Dettelbach, the congressmen have written to the ATF with multiple requests for information on the agency’s rulemaking process, yet agency officials have not answered Jordan’s inquiries since the ATF recently redefined braced pistols as short-barreled rifles (SBRs) under the National Firearms Act (NFA).

“The ATF’s lack of transparency comes after the agency issued a final rule banning stabilizing pistol braces, and as the agency continues to shut down lawful businesses through the ‘zero-tolerance’ policy for federal firearms dealers (FFLs),” the letter states. “Just last year, the United States Supreme Court held in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency that under the major questions doctrine, ‘given both separation of powers principles and a practical understanding of legislative intent, the agency must point to ‘clear congressional authorization’ for the authority it claims. This ruling raises serious doubts about ATF’s ability to regulate pistol braces absent a clear mandate from Congress.”

The letter invites Dettelbach to testify before the U.S. House Judiciary Committee on April 26....

For those here who are keeping track--and for the other 20 million Americans affected--the quickly approaching deadline under the ATF's pistol brace "law" to either register or dismantle is May 31. May 31 will be 120 days from the day the order was published in the Federal Register: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR- ... -01001.pdf.

[The Annoyed Man]

Don’t comply. Become ungovernable. That’s MY answer.

[Paladin]

What we have here is clear evidence of oligarchy:

Congressional Witness Admits Bloomberg Gun Control Group Asked ATF for Pistol Brace Rule

Jordan asked Wilcox, “Did you or anyone in your organization communicate with the ATF or the Biden administration about these issues we are discussing today, prior to the notice of proposed rulemaking?”

Wilcox responded, “We submitted a formal petition for rulemaking through the formal channel, sir.”

Jordan then pressed for certainty, asking, “Before the notice of proposed rule making?”

Wilcox responded, “That’s correct.”

[Rafe]

Just wonderful.

[rtschl]

Not sure what to think. I don't have one, but don't think it should be illegal to have a brace. But this is possibly a very limited injunction. Only FPC members who were the named plaintiffs? That injunction should be for everyone in 5th Circuit.

[Paladin]

Not sure what to think. I don't have one, but don't think it should be illegal to have a brace. But this is possibly a very limited injunction. Only FPC members who were the named plaintiffs? That injunction should be for everyone in 5th Circuit.

Good News!

[rtschl]

Good News!

Except the injunction may only apply to members of FPC who are the plaintiffs - no one else. If true, then that is a travesty for those that own them and not a member of FPC. That would mean the new ATF rule still applies to anyone else in the 5th District as well as all other districts. I don't think I have seen such a limitation of a 2A lawsuit before. Hopefully, the reporting is wrong on this and the injunction is for all in the 5th District.

[Paladin]

Good News!

Except the injunction may only apply to members of FPC who are the plaintiffs - no one else. If true, then that is a travesty for those that own them and not a member of FPC. That would mean the new ATF rule still applies to anyone else in the 5th District as well as all other districts. I don't think I have seen such a limitation of a 2A lawsuit before. Hopefully, the reporting is wrong on this and the injunction is for all in the 5th District.

I'll let any lawyers chime in, but my understanding is that the "as to plantiffs" part means it rules in favor of the plantiffs, not just "for the plantiff". Therefore Texas and the rest of the area covered by the 5th Circuit has injuction relief.

[Rafe]

I'll let any lawyers chime in, but my understanding is that the "as to plaintiffs" part means it rules in favor of the plaintiffs, not just "for the plaintiff". Therefore Texas and the rest of the area covered by the 5th Circuit has injunction relief.

Fingers crossed. The implementation deadline is barely a week away. And my friend still hasn't figured out how to get the pistol brace off his without cutting off the buffer tube. He tried the application of heat to try to loosen the brace so it would come off, but no go. Looks like the manufacturer glued the thing on there with something stronger than a semi-removable Loktite.

[Wysiwyg101]

This morning I read a Quora question and response that talks about this. The question respondent came up with some stuff I hadn't considered. Here's the question:

"How many gun owners realize that the new ban on pistol braces will instantly make millions of law abiding gun owners felons, require those who try to comply with the new rule to provide photographic evidence to the ATF that they own illegal firearms, and add many names to the ATF's gun registry?"

Here's the response by Matt B.

"The proposed final rule does make a lot of unsuspecting gun owners felons.

People are forgetting there are two classes of problems here. The first, as pointed out, you need to provide photographic evidence of your firearm to determine if it will be SBR’d. This is an issue because under the National Firearms Act (NFA), one must get approved beforehand to assemble an NFA item. Until you have the tax stamp, you are deemed to be in illegal possession of the NFA item by default.

There is literally nothing stopping the BATFE from prosecuting every single person who sends in a picture of their braced pistol for unlawful possession of a short-barreled rifle (SBR). There is nothing in the law that allows the BATFE to create a different registration procedure for SBRs now that didn’t exist before.

This is, believe or not, the lesser of the two problems.

What a lot of talk about the brace rule have been ignoring is the fact that in several jurisdictions, NFA firearms or SBRs are illegal to possess! Period. These firearms were sold and transferred as legal pistols. With the BATFE’s blessing. But reclassify them as SBR’s and you have literally created unknowing felons in these states and these people have literally no way to comply. Their states won’t let them. A free tax stamp does them no good when NFA possession is already illegal.

Which means the brace rule faces two rather significant Constitutional issues. One is equal protection. Pistols sold legally in all 50 states are now going to be treated differently where you live. Bruen had something to say about that. The other is a little more major. The fact the owner cannot comply requires them to dispose of the firearm. Without compensation.

This is what we call a “taking” under the Fifth Amendment. The BATFE wrote a rule that literally bans and confiscates firearms from legal owners. These owners cannot comply with the terms of the rule so their only option is to sell or turn in the gun. They have no legal ability to retain possession despite the fact they bought and transferred the firearm legally.

You just created felons requiring them to turn in their guns in California, the District of Columbia, Connecticut (specific exceptions exist), Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland (if under 29″ OAL), Minnesota, New Jersey, New York and Rhode Island. In other states SBRs are legal to possess if legally registered under Federal law. State law may make an SBR illegal unless previously registered with the Federal government and many do.

This is major, folks. This is literally a government confiscation of firearms by fiat. No law was passed by Congress to enable this. A government agency decided on its own to reclassify Title I firearms into Title II and ban them.

Getting added to the NFRTR (National Firearms Registry and Transfer Record, the registry of NFA items) is the least of these people’s problem.

The 5th Amendment issue is the reason I see this being overturned or stayed. People in 10 states, 20% of the country and a lot more than 20% of the population, are now being required to surrender their firearms to the government without recompense. That cannot stand.
"

[Paladin]

“We are very excited and encouraged by the Fifth Circuit’s decision this morning,” Cody J. Wisniewski, Senior Attorney for Constitutional Litigation at FPC Action Foundation, said in a statement. “We intend to ask the Court for additional information about who is covered under the injunction, but cannot stress enough just how important this decision is.”

[rtschl]

The EPA ruling today may also end up blocking ATF regulations not clearly defined in law. Interesting video from 2A/Constitutional attorney Mark Smith that goes more in depth explaining how this ruling can be applied to ATF. You'll need to click the Show more to get the YouTube link.

[tomneal]

I've been watching Mark Smith on you tube for about a year. (I have too much time on my hands. and the weather prevented me from going outside to play.)

Mark has hopeful takes on 2nd amendment court cases.