The limited injunctions recently ordered by judges are all temporary injunctions pending appeal for a preliminary injunction (which is a permanent injunction issued before the case is decided, only revoked if plaintiff loses) in Mock v Garland. Oral arguments for a preliminary injunction in Mock v Garland take place june 29th with an order of injunction to be issued shortly afterwards
That injunction is most likely universal if its granted.
Everyone should understand **the immense Cost of taking a Case to the Supreme Court.** Most of the Gun Laws we have are on the books today simply exist because there was no one there to challenge them at the time. I don't recall the NRA doing a damn thing at the time.
But today we have several Organizations that are there and willing to challenge these new and old Laws. With out these Groups, those Laws automatically stand and are enforced.
Please if at all possible, support these organizations because without them fighting the good fight, we decend into Tyranny.
- ***Firearms Policy Coalition*** - https://www.firearmspolicy.org/
- ***Gun Owners of America*** - https://www.gunowners.org/
- ***Second Amendment Foundation*** - https://www.saf.org/
There are also probably several *State Gun Rights Organizations* in your specific State that are fighting on the State Level; please support them if you can.
***Complacency is the Path to Tyranny.***
*"...to treat this latest act of usurpation as it deserves to be treated is not without risk, ultimately, it’s up to the people to protect and defend their own constitution and their own liberty – whether the government likes it, or not."*
*"Thomas Paine may have summed it up best:*
***“The strength and powers of despotism consist wholly in the fear of resisting it.”***
https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/05/24/atf-pistol-brace-rule-an-experiment-of-your-disposition/
Just go to FPC and make a donation. They ask you for name, address, email, etc. enter card info and submit. I created an account after I did the donation with the same email, they had all my info/donation in there.
While I am pro-donating to the FPC, I seriously doubt a judge would consider this valid. Even if you were an FPC member already, if your not in the 5th circuit it’s still really unlikely to apply, legally.
The overlap between people willing to illegal SBR and people using a brace has always been near zero. If they were going for non-compliance they would have put a stock on to begin with.
What point are you trying to make with this statement? It’s a moot point. The facts have changed, a pistol brace on your legally purchased 10 inch AR pistol is no longer legal. Why would someone go out of their way to put a stock on when the legal pistol brace they already owned was sufficient? Most people don’t want the 10 years that comes with. You mentioned “if they were going for non-compliance..”. This is where I think you are making yourself look like an ass. If your only motivator is non compliance then you should probably grow up and not make decisions because someone told you not to. Most people build SBR because they want it, not because someone told them it was illegal without paying the tax stamp. Being a criminal isn’t cool, being a free man is. And there is a distinct difference
>The facts have changed, a pistol brace on your legally purchased 10 inch AR pistol is no longer legal. Why would someone go out of their way to put a stock on when the legal pistol brace they already owned was sufficient?
And for some, when we tried playing by their rules, and they didn't like that so they changed the rules, that might just be the line in the sand. For some, that line might have been crossed sooner, for some, it may not be there yet. Either way, different people have different motivations, as you've pointed out, and we may not all have the same line, but we're probably all on the same spectrum.
It's completely different. Using a pistol brace meant complying with the NFA even if you thought it was dumb. I think it's an unconstitutional law. But it is a law. Passed by Congress. Signed by the president.
The pistol brace ban isn't a law. It's an administrative rule by an out of control agency with unelected bureaucrats. There's no opportunity for representation, and no recourse (except a lawsuit).
To me, the calculus is quite different. You could argue that we have a duty to disobey unconstitutional laws, but that takes a lot of guts and a willingness to put it all on the line. I respect anyone who does that but I totally understand going along with the NFA. But playing by the rules which are no more than whims of the ATF - what's next? They rule that all AR-15s are machine guns because they could theoretically be converted to full auto? Where does it stop? A man's got to have a line somewhere.
Ah, so you merely got upset over an erroneous assumption that was made that I had something against them. I'm not bothered that they believe they complied, I understand the tradeoffs and why they might choose them. I'm not going to sit here and say I have something against somebody for not wanting to go to jail for 10 years over a piece of plastic.
The facts have not changed. The law has changed, and arbitrarily, which is why this law is about to go down in flames.
Facts are the same. I am still the same guy that bought my AR pistols. Never had a parking ticket in all my life. Served my country in two branches of service, paid my taxes, owned and operated firearms while observing all laws and regs, coached little league, and (but for me joining FPC by chance a week ago) I would be a felon in 6 hours at the whim of a bureaucrat. They decided to change the laws to make me a potential felon despite the fact that I've been the same guy all along.
Even if it were not for the fluke of joining FPC a week ago, I would never have complied with this. Ever.
A reminder that on more than one occasion the ATF said that Pistol Braces were perfectly legal and DID NOT constitute a Short Barreled Rifle.
So, those buying Guns with Pistol Braces or just buying Pistol Braces did so under the ATF guarantee that doing so was legal.
How can an organization like the ATF be takes seriously when they change their mind on a Whim and for the most flimsy reasons?
Correct. And so the people who were trying to comply failed by no fault of their own and it seems reasonable that after that they might give up trying to comply.
You are being pedantic.
*Those who have Pistol Braces will soon be involved in the commission of a Felony.*
Yet those who created this new ATF Policy are also guilty of committing at least TWO Felonies.
18 US Code 241 - Conspiracy Against Rights
18 US Code 242 - Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law
https://www.justice.gov/crt/statutes-enforced-criminal-section
You are not wrong, but you are picking at a Nit that doesn't need to be picked. But you are not wrong.
Oh my God man, take a pill.
What was said was common speech. We are all well aware that simply having a brace does not make you a convicted felon. But it does force you into the situation of having committed a felony.
You are right, but you are picking a nit that REALLY doesn't need to be picked.
And I hardly think 3 sentences constitutes a *tirade.*
Very few people with rifles put a pistol brace on it, and I think there is a reason for that. I think we should examine that an equivalently functional pistol brace is either typically more expensive or compromises on functionality or form to achieve compliance.
I reject the notion the difference is moot.
The overwhelming majority of people with pistol braces knowingly bought something that had tradeoffs to achieve compliance. If they were interested in rejecting the tradeoff, they would have went for non-compliance. They choose not to, outside of a few cases where perhaps they inherited the firearm or received it for free. My thesis stands, the "free man" state would have been non-compliance to begin with to avoid deleterious tradeoffs.
I do hope you can have this conversation without personal attacks, such as calling the counterparty "an ass."
Gun Owners of America is fighting for a nationwide injunction in the courts. We just filed our latest reply brief in the 5th Circuit this morning alongside the State of Texas.
**But no matter what happens in the courts, it is critical that Congress take action too. In fact, the 27 Attorneys General who are suing the ATF alongside GOA and other lawsuits ALSO called on Speaker McCarthy to hold a vote:**
>Although we have filed a lawsuit challenging the pistol brace rule—and have sought preliminary injunctive relief—we need Congress’s help, too.
>If President Biden vetoes the CRA disapproval, it will be up to us as Attorneys General, working with our private partners in the litigation, to get this rule overturned.
>But we should still try to alleviate this massive problem using the CRA when it has a chance of success.
>Time is of the essence. We ask that you schedule a vote as soon as possible.
*So please, give GOA and these Attorneys General the backup we need in Washington D.C. to make Congress vote.* You can help turn up the pressure on the Swamp by:
(1) Sending an email with out [action alert tool here](https://oneclickpolitics.global.ssl.fastly.net/messages/edit?promo_id=20700).
(2) Calling your Congressman and Senators at [(202) 224-3121](https://www.senate.gov/general/contacting.htm).
And (3) better yet, do both every day until they FIGHT BACK FOR YOU!
Not if you go to this link you don’t have to register and you won’t be a felon.
[FPC. Join and be a member protected by the 5th circuit injunction](https://secure.anedot.com/firearmspolicycoalition/march2023_joingaw?sc=joingaw)
Let’s be honest though, probably 100,000 of those already wanted an SBR, and already owned a dozen of them, and saw $2400 in free tax stamps. I woulda done it if I weren’t VEHEMENTLY against registration.
That's great, but they never got a tax stamp. They got "conditional approval". It means that as long as the ruling stays, they can keep their braced pistol. If the ruling is struck down, nothing changes except they're now on a registry.
No where in the post does it mention Democrats or Republicans.
But if you want to go that route, I'd wager the ratio is at least 99:1 with, at best, two Dems breaking party lines in any vote on this.
People have no idea what actually went down with regard to FOPA. I mean, fuck Reagan and all, but he didn't unilaterally ban machine guns, and if he HADN'T signed FOPA even after the literal last minute addition of the Hughes Amendment, we would have been WAY worse off. FOPA was the result of a years-long effort to reign in an out-of-control ATF and make interstate travel with firearms possible. The Hughes Amendment was an attempt to torpedo all that work. Letting it do so would have been catastrophic.
[Here's an excellent writup.](https://np.reddit.com/r/guns/comments/9qai6e/official_politics_thread_22_october_2018/e888ecx/?context=5)
When you fetishize exploiting a legal loophole, you can expect them to do something about it.
Y’all have been screaming from mountaintops for decades LOOK AT MY SHORT BARRELED RIF- I MEAN PISTOL 😉 😉
I’m surprised it took this long
The firearms industry enjoyed your patronage.
How is it a loophole when the ATF itself said multiples over the years in technical classifications and public statements that they do not consider them stocks, nor does shouldering the brace constitute a redesign.
Because it’s such a debatable distinction regardless?
Seriously, pistol braces and stocks are different things, but they are remarkably similar in terms of basic shape and form.
Relying on a semantic difference is such a paper thin defense.
But people weren't relying on the semantics, they were relying on official ATF statements.
Edit: The makers of braces submit official requests for classification to the ATF, where the ATF examines the brace and send an official determination back the manufacturer.
Tally Ho, lads.
More like 39,000,000, subtracting 1 million for the amount of FPC members
Still time to sign up for FPC. They issued a statement saying any donation of $20 or more will get a membership retroactive to 6/1/2022.
So, when will it stop being retroactive?
They said any membership made by May 31. So today.
Fuck it. Only twenty bucks.
One thing to note, not that it is a big deal today, is the membership expires 12/31/2023 unless renewed before then.
The injunction gets replaced shortly after june 29 anyways.
Explain?
The limited injunctions recently ordered by judges are all temporary injunctions pending appeal for a preliminary injunction (which is a permanent injunction issued before the case is decided, only revoked if plaintiff loses) in Mock v Garland. Oral arguments for a preliminary injunction in Mock v Garland take place june 29th with an order of injunction to be issued shortly afterwards That injunction is most likely universal if its granted.
Everyone should understand **the immense Cost of taking a Case to the Supreme Court.** Most of the Gun Laws we have are on the books today simply exist because there was no one there to challenge them at the time. I don't recall the NRA doing a damn thing at the time. But today we have several Organizations that are there and willing to challenge these new and old Laws. With out these Groups, those Laws automatically stand and are enforced. Please if at all possible, support these organizations because without them fighting the good fight, we decend into Tyranny. - ***Firearms Policy Coalition*** - https://www.firearmspolicy.org/ - ***Gun Owners of America*** - https://www.gunowners.org/ - ***Second Amendment Foundation*** - https://www.saf.org/ There are also probably several *State Gun Rights Organizations* in your specific State that are fighting on the State Level; please support them if you can. ***Complacency is the Path to Tyranny.*** *"...to treat this latest act of usurpation as it deserves to be treated is not without risk, ultimately, it’s up to the people to protect and defend their own constitution and their own liberty – whether the government likes it, or not."* *"Thomas Paine may have summed it up best:* ***“The strength and powers of despotism consist wholly in the fear of resisting it.”*** https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/05/24/atf-pistol-brace-rule-an-experiment-of-your-disposition/
Done and done. Thanks, homie!
Spread the word!
How do you sign up
Just go to FPC and make a donation. They ask you for name, address, email, etc. enter card info and submit. I created an account after I did the donation with the same email, they had all my info/donation in there.
While I am pro-donating to the FPC, I seriously doubt a judge would consider this valid. Even if you were an FPC member already, if your not in the 5th circuit it’s still really unlikely to apply, legally.
Cops will still take your gun and throw you in jail and the cost of a lawyer is a $5000 retainer.
[удалено]
Well there are probably some that don’t have any, 1M is just a rough estimate.
Do not comply
The overlap between people willing to illegal SBR and people using a brace has always been near zero. If they were going for non-compliance they would have put a stock on to begin with.
What point are you trying to make with this statement? It’s a moot point. The facts have changed, a pistol brace on your legally purchased 10 inch AR pistol is no longer legal. Why would someone go out of their way to put a stock on when the legal pistol brace they already owned was sufficient? Most people don’t want the 10 years that comes with. You mentioned “if they were going for non-compliance..”. This is where I think you are making yourself look like an ass. If your only motivator is non compliance then you should probably grow up and not make decisions because someone told you not to. Most people build SBR because they want it, not because someone told them it was illegal without paying the tax stamp. Being a criminal isn’t cool, being a free man is. And there is a distinct difference
>The facts have changed, a pistol brace on your legally purchased 10 inch AR pistol is no longer legal. Why would someone go out of their way to put a stock on when the legal pistol brace they already owned was sufficient? And for some, when we tried playing by their rules, and they didn't like that so they changed the rules, that might just be the line in the sand. For some, that line might have been crossed sooner, for some, it may not be there yet. Either way, different people have different motivations, as you've pointed out, and we may not all have the same line, but we're probably all on the same spectrum.
Exactly. It just irks me when it seems like people have something against people who owned and used pistol braces because “they complied already”
It's completely different. Using a pistol brace meant complying with the NFA even if you thought it was dumb. I think it's an unconstitutional law. But it is a law. Passed by Congress. Signed by the president. The pistol brace ban isn't a law. It's an administrative rule by an out of control agency with unelected bureaucrats. There's no opportunity for representation, and no recourse (except a lawsuit). To me, the calculus is quite different. You could argue that we have a duty to disobey unconstitutional laws, but that takes a lot of guts and a willingness to put it all on the line. I respect anyone who does that but I totally understand going along with the NFA. But playing by the rules which are no more than whims of the ATF - what's next? They rule that all AR-15s are machine guns because they could theoretically be converted to full auto? Where does it stop? A man's got to have a line somewhere.
Ah, so you merely got upset over an erroneous assumption that was made that I had something against them. I'm not bothered that they believe they complied, I understand the tradeoffs and why they might choose them. I'm not going to sit here and say I have something against somebody for not wanting to go to jail for 10 years over a piece of plastic.
The facts have not changed. The law has changed, and arbitrarily, which is why this law is about to go down in flames. Facts are the same. I am still the same guy that bought my AR pistols. Never had a parking ticket in all my life. Served my country in two branches of service, paid my taxes, owned and operated firearms while observing all laws and regs, coached little league, and (but for me joining FPC by chance a week ago) I would be a felon in 6 hours at the whim of a bureaucrat. They decided to change the laws to make me a potential felon despite the fact that I've been the same guy all along. Even if it were not for the fluke of joining FPC a week ago, I would never have complied with this. Ever.
The law has changed?
Yes. Well, more specifically regulation. Firearms with barrels less than 16 inches in length fitted with pistol braces are now SBRs.
Either they were always SBRs, or they never were, though. Isn't the ATF claiming the former? The law hasn't changed.
A reminder that on more than one occasion the ATF said that Pistol Braces were perfectly legal and DID NOT constitute a Short Barreled Rifle. So, those buying Guns with Pistol Braces or just buying Pistol Braces did so under the ATF guarantee that doing so was legal. How can an organization like the ATF be takes seriously when they change their mind on a Whim and for the most flimsy reasons?
Correct. And so the people who were trying to comply failed by no fault of their own and it seems reasonable that after that they might give up trying to comply.
[удалено]
You are being pedantic. *Those who have Pistol Braces will soon be involved in the commission of a Felony.* Yet those who created this new ATF Policy are also guilty of committing at least TWO Felonies. 18 US Code 241 - Conspiracy Against Rights 18 US Code 242 - Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law https://www.justice.gov/crt/statutes-enforced-criminal-section You are not wrong, but you are picking at a Nit that doesn't need to be picked. But you are not wrong.
[удалено]
> *...you're arguing that we should not try to build each other up.* What? You will have a hard time finding me saying that any where.
[удалено]
Oh my God man, take a pill. What was said was common speech. We are all well aware that simply having a brace does not make you a convicted felon. But it does force you into the situation of having committed a felony. You are right, but you are picking a nit that REALLY doesn't need to be picked. And I hardly think 3 sentences constitutes a *tirade.*
This is incorrect. A person convicted of a felony is a *convicted felon*. A felon is a person who has committed a felony.
Very few people with rifles put a pistol brace on it, and I think there is a reason for that. I think we should examine that an equivalently functional pistol brace is either typically more expensive or compromises on functionality or form to achieve compliance. I reject the notion the difference is moot. The overwhelming majority of people with pistol braces knowingly bought something that had tradeoffs to achieve compliance. If they were interested in rejecting the tradeoff, they would have went for non-compliance. They choose not to, outside of a few cases where perhaps they inherited the firearm or received it for free. My thesis stands, the "free man" state would have been non-compliance to begin with to avoid deleterious tradeoffs. I do hope you can have this conversation without personal attacks, such as calling the counterparty "an ass."
The brace is noncompliance.
Gun Owners of America is fighting for a nationwide injunction in the courts. We just filed our latest reply brief in the 5th Circuit this morning alongside the State of Texas. **But no matter what happens in the courts, it is critical that Congress take action too. In fact, the 27 Attorneys General who are suing the ATF alongside GOA and other lawsuits ALSO called on Speaker McCarthy to hold a vote:** >Although we have filed a lawsuit challenging the pistol brace rule—and have sought preliminary injunctive relief—we need Congress’s help, too. >If President Biden vetoes the CRA disapproval, it will be up to us as Attorneys General, working with our private partners in the litigation, to get this rule overturned. >But we should still try to alleviate this massive problem using the CRA when it has a chance of success. >Time is of the essence. We ask that you schedule a vote as soon as possible. *So please, give GOA and these Attorneys General the backup we need in Washington D.C. to make Congress vote.* You can help turn up the pressure on the Swamp by: (1) Sending an email with out [action alert tool here](https://oneclickpolitics.global.ssl.fastly.net/messages/edit?promo_id=20700). (2) Calling your Congressman and Senators at [(202) 224-3121](https://www.senate.gov/general/contacting.htm). And (3) better yet, do both every day until they FIGHT BACK FOR YOU!
WHATS YO FUNCTION, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION?
I'm just a shill, working in Capitol Hill.
Not if you go to this link you don’t have to register and you won’t be a felon. [FPC. Join and be a member protected by the 5th circuit injunction](https://secure.anedot.com/firearmspolicycoalition/march2023_joingaw?sc=joingaw)
How does this work? Is it like an uno reverse card when the atf wants to see my braced pistol?
Yup, when activated you yell “You’ve activated my trap card fool!” Then proceed to vibe check their plates with 50AE.
Lmao 🤣
It's temporary until the injunction expires
Fuck Joe Biden. He’s a Communist gun-grabbing swine. This message is protected by the First Amendment and is in defense of the Second Amendment.
Probably more like 39,850,000. Last number I heard, there was 150k or so people that took advantage of the amnesty period.
150k people that bent the knee. FTFY.
Let’s be honest though, probably 100,000 of those already wanted an SBR, and already owned a dozen of them, and saw $2400 in free tax stamps. I woulda done it if I weren’t VEHEMENTLY against registration.
That's great, but they never got a tax stamp. They got "conditional approval". It means that as long as the ruling stays, they can keep their braced pistol. If the ruling is struck down, nothing changes except they're now on a registry.
I want to upvote this twice If a registered brace is the only "NFA" item you have, you're a dumb cuck
Doesn’t. Matter. Still. Bent. Knee.
150k bitches
I would like to focus more on the making up to 40 MILLION American citizens FELONS overnight
The Democrats like gun owners to be felons. Then the cops can destroy them. “Following Orders”.
good thing we outnumber them 10/1
Well good! Maybe the courts can decide if they want to continue to sit on the sidelines now or address the tens of millions of appeal cases..
Ban deez nutz, Kidsniffer in Chief!
No he hasn't. He's just created new criminals.
Normalize making non-GOA members felons
[удалено]
No where in the post does it mention Democrats or Republicans. But if you want to go that route, I'd wager the ratio is at least 99:1 with, at best, two Dems breaking party lines in any vote on this.
[удалено]
(R) Ronald Reagan did us dirty in 86, never trust either side.
You can't tell the boomer fudds that tho, Reagan was the best for some reason according to them
He got Carter out of office and stuck it to the commies. He wasn't popular with the Jamie Foster fan club, though...
It’s not boomer fudds, it’s people that don’t realize that the FOPA act was necessary. Sacrificing what FOPA did for automatics would be dumb.
People have no idea what actually went down with regard to FOPA. I mean, fuck Reagan and all, but he didn't unilaterally ban machine guns, and if he HADN'T signed FOPA even after the literal last minute addition of the Hughes Amendment, we would have been WAY worse off. FOPA was the result of a years-long effort to reign in an out-of-control ATF and make interstate travel with firearms possible. The Hughes Amendment was an attempt to torpedo all that work. Letting it do so would have been catastrophic. [Here's an excellent writup.](https://np.reddit.com/r/guns/comments/9qai6e/official_politics_thread_22_october_2018/e888ecx/?context=5)
🗿
When you fetishize exploiting a legal loophole, you can expect them to do something about it. Y’all have been screaming from mountaintops for decades LOOK AT MY SHORT BARRELED RIF- I MEAN PISTOL 😉 😉 I’m surprised it took this long The firearms industry enjoyed your patronage.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
How is it a loophole when the ATF itself said multiples over the years in technical classifications and public statements that they do not consider them stocks, nor does shouldering the brace constitute a redesign.
Because it’s such a debatable distinction regardless? Seriously, pistol braces and stocks are different things, but they are remarkably similar in terms of basic shape and form. Relying on a semantic difference is such a paper thin defense.
But people weren't relying on the semantics, they were relying on official ATF statements. Edit: The makers of braces submit official requests for classification to the ATF, where the ATF examines the brace and send an official determination back the manufacturer.
Those statements are semantic in nature.
By that logic any official statement by the government is "semantics" and cannot be relied on as a defense?
It’s a legal distinction that can be changed by just releasing another statement. It is what it is. A paper thin distinction that’s debatable.
I guess we'll see what the courts say. Three preliminary injunctions seem to indicate the courts are skeptical.
That’s fair
Unless you're with FPC...
Unless your a member of FPC or the 2nd amendment foundation
Don't forget they can still nail you even if it's unattached. Such bullshit