I swear once an org reaches a certain size it starts to end up loving the smell of it's own **** and the original mission and passion of the grass root beginnings dies in bureaucracy and cronyism/corruption. Doesn't matter what field really. Seen it happen at least a dozen times now in my life with orgs I have been part of or closely connected to. The NRA I grew up with is not the NRA of today. There are some reasons I can think that had a role in that change but this is not an NRA bashing thread. But we also cannot deny the obvious that the NRA has NOT been leading the fight against 2A regulation in some time now. (also Lapierre still somehow being CEO should tell you all you need to know)Bregxit said:
I guess SAF is the next one I need to join. FPC, check. GOA Life, check. TSRA Defender, check (though they don't get involved in any litigation that I am aware of...just joined for CMP stuff).
Noticeably absent, NRA. And I am NRA Life also. What ****ing happened to these guys?
Quote:
FEDERAL JUDGE CLARIFIES SAF MEMBERS PROTECTED BY PISTOL BRACE INJUNCTION
BELLEVUE, WA
A federal judge has clarified the scope of an injunction in a Second Amendment Foundation challenge to the Biden administration's new "Arm Brace Rule." The case is known as SAF, et.al. v. ATF, et. al .
SAF is joined in the case by Rainier Arms, LLC and two private citizens, Samuel Walley and William Green. They are represented by attorney Chad Flores at Flores Law in Houston, Texas.
In her prior order granting the preliminary injunction, U.S. District Judge Jane J. Boyle wrote, "The Court grants in part the Motion and issues a preliminary injunction as to Plaintiffs in this case only," leaving a question as to whether the injunction applied to members of SAF. Late yesterday, SAF filed a motion to clarify the scope of the injunction. Today, Judge Boyle clarified the prior order with a new order and in a docket entry which stated, "The Court confirms that its Preliminary Injunction Order applies to both the Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. and its members."
"SAF has received numerous inquiries from individuals as to whether the injunction covered our members," said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. "Our attorney had attempted to reach an understanding with the government as to the scope of the injunction and coverage of our members. When it became apparent that the parties were not seeing eye to eye on the matter, despite the 5th Circuit's clarification in another case on this exact point, we asked the court for clarification. We are pleased to see that Judge Boyle agrees with our interpretation and that our members are indeed protected under this injunction."
SAF offers several different tiers of memberships which are available at https://www.saf.org/join-saf/. Annual membership is $15, a five-year membership is $50 and a life membership is $150. Membership is effective upon date of receipt.
For questions regarding membership, please contact info@saf.org.
Political organization at this point. That's it.Bregxit said:
I guess SAF is the next one I need to join. FPC, check. GOA Life, check. TSRA Defender, check (though they don't get involved in any litigation that I am aware of...just joined for CMP stuff).
Noticeably absent, NRA. And I am NRA Life also. What ****ing happened to these guys?
BenderRodriguez said:
Chris over at VS puts it more eloquently than I do.
TheVarian said:
Woomer is the man
It was probably a mistake in the script or his notes (.025 is 2.5%).civilaggie2011 said:
Great video that is partially ruined by really poor math. 250k out of 10 million is 2.5%, not 0.025%. The point still stands that there is massive noncompliance, but geez…math isn't that hard.
AgLA06 said:
I don't disagree.
However, this isn't live. If you're going to try and be the voice of others, have someone edit the video for you and ensure your facts are correct.
SKY1 said:
It appears the State of Texas is covered by the injunction per this youtube video....
AgLA06 said:
Sad he doesn't have a single friend or wife. And if he's that irrelevant, Why are you so surprised he screwed it up?
I think most people recognize the math isn't quite right. Speaking for myself I thought that doesn't sound quite right I should check that math? Then I thought why waste my time 250k out of 10 million is still a very small number and based on how he got his numbers the reality is even a smaller number and I let it go. Not worthy of my time.civilaggie2011 said:
Continuing the derail, but oh well.
I guess I kind of get your point, but shouldn't anyone with any common sense be able to instantly know that 250k/10mil is way more than 0.025%? That's more than an editing mistake, it's an error that should be evident as soon as it's said. Unless you're ******ed when it comes to numbers I guess. It's off by two orders of magnitude!
Also I'm not a sewer engineer, or an engineer of any sort anymore. But your point seemed to be that only nerds care about mathematical accuracy? That's pretty sad.
And this comment didn't??RK said:
y'all are really "June'ing" up this thread.
ldg397 said:And this comment didn't??RK said:
y'all are really "June'ing" up this thread.
Unfortunately, unles there has been a clarification, the video is wrong...ChemEAg08 said:SKY1 said:
It appears the State of Texas is covered by the injunction per this youtube video....
Anyone for a link to the Texas v ATF case? Haven't been able to find it searching the internet…
Quote:
White House threatens to veto GOP resolution against its pistol brace ban
The White House on Monday renewed its support for the Biden administration's pistol brace ban, threatening to veto a resolution that has been linked to the House conservatives' revolt.
The GOP resolution disapproves of the Department of Justice's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) rule relating to "Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached 'Stabilizing Braces,'" which the Biden administration released in January.
The rule, which has been a target of conservatives since Attorney General Merrick Garland announced it, would reclassify pistols that have a stabilizing brace as short-barreled rifles and require those with existing pistols that have stabilizing braces to have registered with the government by May 31, 2023.
But, last week the resolution's sponsor, Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-Ga.), claimed that GOP leadership told him if he didn't support advancing the debt limit deal, the resolution would be tough to bring to the floor. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) has denied the claim and that leadership is working to bring it to the floor, Fox News reported.
The president made clear Monday that if the resolution reached his desk, he would veto it.
"Even though Congressional Republicans should take additional action to keep these and other dangerous weapons off our streets, they are instead pushing a resolution to reverse this rule and the progress we have made to enforce existing statutory requirements on these dangerous weapons," according to the White House's Statement of Administration Policy.
The House Judiciary Committee was set to mark up a resolution to nullify the rule in March but postponed it following the mass shooting at a Nashville, Tenn....
