Pistol Brace Amnesty/Registration

[ZX9RCAM]

Does temporary make them legal today?

 

[toddnjoyce]

Does temporary make them legal today?

Kind of a vague question, but I’ll attempt. A temporary injunction prevents the government from being able to enforce a law while it’s being challenged; legality is in a state of limbo.

The guidance is essentially if the facts of the case as presented in the filings indicate it’s likely the government will lose and it’s likely citizens will be harmed before the case is decided then it’s best to temporarily prevent the government from harming the citizen until the case is argued and decided. Does the government lose every time? No. But it loses enough that the courts have developed these guidelines.

 

[Renegade]

Should also be a injunction on the bump stock case, since it is essentially the same.

 

[platoon2063]

Kind of a vague question, but I’ll attempt. A temporary injunction prevents the government from being able to enforce a law while it’s being challenged; legality is in a state of limbo.

The guidance is essentially if the facts of the case as presented in the filings indicate it’s likely the government will lose and it’s likely citizens will be harmed before the case is decided then it’s best to temporarily prevent the government from harming the citizen until the case is argued and decided. Does the government lose every time? No. But it loses enough that the courts have developed these guidelines.

Agree mostly. Legality is not really in limbo. An injunction is an order from the court to/for an individual, group, company, organization, etc. to cease or stop an action/s.

With that being said; the injunction should force the AFT to stop enforcing their "rule" on pistol brace use. An individual would have a real good chance legally speaking to fight any issues that could arise from the usage of said brace.

I'm no lawyer, though. However, I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express not long ago if that counts.

 

[billtool]

Should also be a injunction on the bump stock case, since it is essentially the same.

That's going in front of the Supreme Court this coming session.

 

[Vaquero]

I want to know how long majormadmax has been waiting.

 

[Renegade]

That's going in front of the Supreme Court this coming session.

yep, three cases headed to SCOTUS

Rahimi - Restraing Orders
Britto - Bump Stocks
Cargill - Braces

I imagine Bevis (the Assault Weapon case) out of the 7th will too.

 

[AKM47]

Until Congress passes a law and the President signs it.

So, even if we win, braces will still be illegal

 

[smittyb]

Until Congress passes a law and the President signs it.

So you are saying Congress has to pass laws to tell us what IS legal…?
Not the way it works.

 

[majormadmax]

I want to know how long majormadmax has been waiting.

Still waiting at 191 days, but had to send more info to the ATF.

They didn't like my reason for creating a SBR (to be fair, I was a bit of a smartass about it!) and they screwed up claiming the model number was different than what I submitted but somehow that's my fault.

It will be interesting to see how they deal with it now...

 

[majormadmax]

So, even if we win, braces will still be illegal

 

[popper]

80% has been vacated now. Don't have any but good news, for now.

 

[majormadmax]

Colion Noir's thoughts...

 

[vmax]

Kind of a vague question, but I’ll attempt. A temporary injunction prevents the government from being able to enforce a law while it’s being challenged; legality is in a state of limbo.

Important to remember the pistol brace "rule" isn't a law and wasn't passed by congress, signed and codified as law.

I can see your point if a new law was passed and then challenged as unconstitutional but this is not that.

 

[toddnjoyce]

Important to remember the pistol brace "rule" isn't a law and wasn't passed by congress, signed and codified as law.

I can see your point if a new law was passed and then challenged as unconstitutional but this is not that.

Difference without distinction, it’s in the Code of Federal Regulations as the implementing rule for GCA68 and carries the weight of law.

 

[popper]

I see a really big problem coming up for the US. Between courts/Congress and lettered orgs. These 'rules' being vacated. EPA and other 'rules' getting a nono from courts. BUT this all may end up at SCOTUS (there is a case against 'rule' making now) and the decision may NOT be in our favor. Basically nullifying the Constitution. Not just guns but you $, privacy and security..

 

[toddnjoyce]

So you are saying Congress has to pass laws to tell us what IS legal…?
Not the way it works.

No. Reading is fundamental; someone posted a statement about “at that point the judge’s ruling is law of the land.” I followed it with “until Congress passes a bill (to change it) and the President signs it into law.

 

[Bozz10mm]

Still waiting at 191 days, but had to send more info to the ATF.

They didn't like my reason for creating a SBR

The correct response to the question is "To bring the firearm into compliance with ATF rules".

 

[Bozz10mm]

Very informative video on the subject

 

[seeker_two]

I see a really big problem coming up for the US. Between courts/Congress and lettered orgs. These 'rules' being vacated. EPA and other 'rules' getting a nono from courts. BUT this all may end up at SCOTUS (there is a case against 'rule' making now) and the decision may NOT be in our favor. Basically nullifying the Constitution. Not just guns but you $, privacy and security..

.....and that's when the fight started.