The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals just ruled the pistol brace regulation is unconstitutional!!!!
- Thread starter Thumper580
- Start date
Suckers!! Tens of thousands have newly registered SBRs.
Which is exactly why I didn't do anything accept give to the GOA and FPC. You guys should too
Somehow I feel like this worked out exactly how it was intended to work out
ATF had a massive 8% compliance rate prior to the deadline.....
Except for the ones that told the ATF that they now have a SBR. The ATF doesn't have the authority to waive a tax.
For the ATF to have a long list of people that the government has labeled The Biggest Threat, White Nationalist to Democracy and a few other things
Probably going to send out form letters letting those stamp owners know that, since this ruling, their stamps are no longer effective.
Last edited:
Told all you faggots that bent your knee.....
We now know who will always lick the boots and comply with whatever is thrown out there by unlawful agencies.
Remember these guys.....they will be the ones turning you in for rewards when they try to take away the 2nd amendment.
Go to all the threads about this issue and remember their names.....
Fuck you to all the ones that bent your knee to the man and sucked their dick.....
Doc
We now know who will always lick the boots and comply with whatever is thrown out there by unlawful agencies.
Remember these guys.....they will be the ones turning you in for rewards when they try to take away the 2nd amendment.
Go to all the threads about this issue and remember their names.....
Fuck you to all the ones that bent your knee to the man and sucked their dick.....
Doc
It’s being sent back to lower courts with outlined problems of the original wording is my understanding. We should celebrate the victory in the short run, but don’t underestimate “their” ability to hose lawful citizens.
Any law or ruling that is unconstitutional is in fact not a law or ruling at all. You have not only the right to disobey it, but are actually obligated to do so as a citizen. In other words...
Good luck to everyone who registered them, good luck attempting to actually deregulated them or remove them from the NFA, good luck to anyone they sell said device to, as they will no doubt have “issues” if someone checks the number in the NFA.
On another note- did anyone see the “NICS has been taken out of service“ notice that was sent around today?
On another note- did anyone see the “NICS has been taken out of service“ notice that was sent around today?
So, going forward, all SBRs are now pistols?
Yeah. I was wondering if this was only the "3 judge" panel in the 5th, or the "en banc' panel, which I'm sure the antis would go to first.
We cannot rest. Never. Not even when "they" appear to be giving up. They are not. They are only "regrouping" for the next attack!
I have to assume they will fight this and I'm wondering if it will hold up on appeal. Good news for now though, I'm sure all the people that registered their pistols as sbrs don't feel like complete retards right now.....
Last edited:
Ok, so asking for a friend that was not part of that 8%, in any state now said friend should be able to go a commercial range with the brace attached and legally shoot since the rule is now completely unconstitutional correct?
Yes, but the lower court will decide how that is applied so it isn't over but it isn't illegal to have or use a pistol brace
You guys all act like they can't just go buy another "pistol" if someone wanted one of those as well.
We're mostly talking about AR's here, cheap disposable tinkertoys.
You're a $40 blem lower away from having your beloved pistol back.
We're mostly talking about AR's here, cheap disposable tinkertoys.
You're a $40 blem lower away from having your beloved pistol back.
I was hoping it would get to the Supreme Court so maybe, just maybe they would rule that SBRs are in common use and strike down that part of NFA
Unless, of course, the anti's file for a temporary injunction/stay while the case is beng resolved.
The Fifth Circuit did not block enforcement of the rule. They sent it back to the District Court Judge, Reed O'Connor, to make that determination.
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/HOTD3IBC4NKSZPEFZV3MLISVXM.jpg)
US pistol brace rule likely illegal, federal appeals court rules
A U.S. regulation restricting ownership of gun accessories known as pistol braces is likely illegal, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday, a victory for a gun rights group challenging the rule.
www.reuters.com This is not really what they ruled.
They were ruling on whether the public had a meaningful opportunity to comment on the proposed rule. They concluded that they did not. Basically, they ruled that the law violated the Administrative Procedures Act.
One of the three judges concurred with an opinion that said that it likely violates the Second Amendment, as well, but that is not the 5th Circuit opinion.
Here is the opinion, if you want to read it.
So, I listened to the first sentence, and this guy is just spouting nonsense.
Bruen is not even mentioned in the opinion.
The concurrence mentions it. The dissent mentions it a lot (the dissent would hold that NFA weapons are not protected by the Second Amendment even under Bruen). The dissent is only mentioning it as a response to the concurrence, like, "Hey, since the concurrence brought it up, here is why I disagree with the concurrence."
Neither the concurrence nor the dissent is the opinion of the court.
The real opinion does not reach the Second Amendment issue at all. Instead, the Fifth Circuit's ruling is that the District Court's ruling that the plaintiffs are not likely to succeed under their Administrative Procedures Act claim should be reversed.
That is it.
And they are sending it back to the same Judge O'Connor who ruled against the plaintiffs to determine whether the rule should be stayed now that he has been reversed on his Administrative Procedures Act ruling.
I linked the opinion in post # 25. I also laid out simply what the ruling was in post # 24.
Whether a person is like to succeed is one of several factors to be established in a preliminary injunction claim.
A preliminary injunction is just an injunction that issues for the duration of the litigation. It is not the final outcome of the case. This is beginning stuff at the outset of the case.
So the Fifth Circuit reversed the trial court on this one factor and sent it back to the trial court to determine the other factors and decide whether to preliminarily enjoin the new rule while the case continues.
A preliminary injunction is just an injunction that issues for the duration of the litigation. It is not the final outcome of the case. This is beginning stuff at the outset of the case.
So the Fifth Circuit reversed the trial court on this one factor and sent it back to the trial court to determine the other factors and decide whether to preliminarily enjoin the new rule while the case continues.
yes, we are all hoping for the ghost of Jefferson to crash through the wall like the Kool Aid man and starting beating the living piss out of Merrick scumbag Garland and his waves of ATF terrorists, but in reality this is more of a procedural delay than it is the judicial branch telling the statists that they shall not pass.
But, it is huge because the courts are sending a strong message to all these agencies that they CANNOT bypass Congress and make their own rules or stretch the hell out of what they were allowed to do in the first place.
Reminder this still needs SCOTUS review as not all of us are lucky to live in 5th district.
But a positive stepbforward
But a positive stepbforward
Judge crushes ATF AR-15 gun ban
A federal judge late Wednesday gave millions of gun owners breathing room when he slammed the Biden administration’s effort to ban a big slice of the AR-15 market.
www.washingtonexaminer.com 
The ATF will file an immediate appeal to the USSC to block the injunction and considering their recent rulings, the ATF will win
I wouldn't be so sure about that. Pretty good reasoning on why the ATF would lose that one.
So what? They don’t care if they lose. They’ll just file something else. Delay delay delay. They’re playing with your money, so who cares what it costs.
True but there were other cases they lost they didn't do that. Once this makes its way to the SC it will be decided one way or the other. I believe the case is pretty damn strong so I'm not worried about it.
We'll see where this goes but, so far, so good. It really doesn't affect me as I don't have any pistol braces. But for those for whom it will help, good on ya.
I want to see what happens with the "magazine limits." That will be my case. That, and all the registration/bacground checks crap.
I want to see what happens with the "magazine limits." That will be my case. That, and all the registration/bacground checks crap.
The interesting part was the court saying (para phrase) "the ATF does not have the authority to take something legal and make it a felony the next day"
Another interesting take on it is that a district court can't make rulings outside of it's jurisdiction. So that's a moot point as well.
However, I stand by my original assertion that the brace is not a firearm, but an accessory. Thus making it outside of the BATFEs scope.
However, I stand by my original assertion that the brace is not a firearm, but an accessory. Thus making it outside of the BATFEs scope.
Doesn't affect me either but I had a galil ace 2 13" pistol on my eventual list that I was planning on sbr'ing. The rule messed that all up.
Federal Judge Smacks Down Biden's ATF AR-15 Gun Ban | The Gateway Pundit | by Mike LaChance
A Trump appointed federal judge just smacked down an attempt by Biden’s ATF to ban AR-15 pistols with arm braces.
www.thegatewaypundit.com Same as above.
No, it can’t. Congress legislated suppressors into being firearms with the NFA.
If Congress makes a law that says a crispy taco shell is a firearm and to be regulated as such by the ATF, well, legally, a crispy taco shell is a firearm that is regulated by the ATF.
The ATF, however, doesn’t have the power to expand the scope of their jurisdiction. Until Congress says that braces are firearms, they are not.
That doesn't make it constitutional. And it's not.
It’s definitely a distilled list of who was paying attention. Those radicals.
That and $200 will get you a tax stamp to make your supressor legal to own…
None of that changes that suppressors are an accessory and therefore shouldn’t be regulated by the ATF. I never said they weren’t currently defined as such.
Yes, I quoted myself.
Similar threads
