The case, State of Texas v. ATF, was bought by GOA, Gun Owners Foundation (GOF), and the state of Texas to challenge the ATF rule that reversed years of determinations surrounding pistols equipped with stabilizing devices. The ATF’s new rule reclassified most pistols with stabilizing braces to short-barreled rifles (SBRs), meaning the firearms would be regulated under the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA). It required owners of these guns to register the firearms with the ATF, submit to additional background checks, hand over passport pictures, and provide fingerprints.
*****
Before anybody starts screaming about it, please know that I agree with you - that injunction, as well as the FPC's injunction, should've been nation-wide instead of just GOA and FPC members.
I'm not an attorney and all that legal shit gives me a headache, so I don't understand why the judges did it this way.
IANAL
ReplyDeleteIt could be how the suit was drafted.
Anyway, it is not the first time. I remember when two pilots won their challenge against the FAA over the capricious age 60 rule. The FAA actually wrote a regulation which said, any pilot born on (specific date) and (specific date) are waived from CFR14 61.xx (the age 60 rule). That waiver applied to only two pilots, the same aforementioned.
Well here's a suggestion, if you own a firearm or even if you don't but believe in our Constitution and Bill of Rights join a gun rights organization.. I personally am a Life Member of the NRA, a dues paying member of the GOA as well The 2nd Ammendment Foundation.. I also donate monthly to both the GOA and the SAF because I put my money where I feel is fighting for my rights. If you can't be bothered then quit your bitching...
ReplyDeleteJD
The fact that the temporary retraining order and the preliminary injunction was granted means that their case has a “high likelihood of success on the merits,” or the judge would not have granted that relief. As for why the injunction against BATFE doesn’t apply to everybody, the reason is everybody else is not a party to this case. When the judgment in the case becomes final, i.e. GOA wins the case and the win is final, then the final judgment will apply to everybody.
ReplyDeleteBut, if I were the US Attorney’s Office representing BATFE, I would advise them not to enforce the challenged regulation pending the outcome of the case. The government will probably lose, and the regulation will probably go bye bye, and the cleanup from enforcement of the regulation will result in much wasted resources by the government. But, the US. Attorney’s Office could nonetheless fight the losing battle all the water to the end; they most likely don’t care, or they would’ve told BATFE from the getgo that the regulation is probably null and void.
The only thing is, the courts move so fucking slowly. As somebody pointed out to me, the bumpstock ban is still in the court system and how long has that been since the Vegas shooting?
DeleteI spent a fair amount of time on 2A sites and video channels and the way I heard it, the pistol brace deal is on ATF's back burner as far as enforcement goes because they know that 'rule' is going down in flames.
My brace is now on the paintball gun. It can be turned up to 700fps and a frozen paintball will cut a squirrel in half. The response trigger makes it almost full auto. All perfectly legal with no background check. It has an accurate effective range of 50 yards.
ReplyDelete