Daddy-O5 said:

---

Quote:

---

The ATF has recently issued a letter to all ATF dealers outlining their latest rulings. This new communication completely contradicts the sworn testimony of the ATF director, who previously stated under oath that removing the pistol brace would satisfy the regulation. According to the recent letter, the brace must now be removed, destroyed, and disposed of in order to be considered "in compliance."

---

Hopefully none of this matters in the end, but this was an email I got from Tennessee Arms.

---

It's the same guidance they've always had. Since the ATF cannot regulate a piece of plastic not attached to a firearm and has no ability to fire a projectile, I will hold onto mine.

Rule 2021R-08F, "Factoring Criteria for Firearms With Attached "Stabilizing Braces"

On January 13, 2023, the Attorney General signed ATF final rule 2021R-08F, "Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached 'Stabilizing Braces,'" amending the regulatory definition of "rifle" to clarify when a firearm is designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder. The final rule took effect on January 31, 2023, the date it was published in the Federal Register. Affected persons have 120 days from the date of publication to come into compliance, which is May 31, 2023. The compliance options provided under the final rule are the following:

Remove the short barrel and attach a 16-inch or longer rifled barrel to the firearm,
Permanently remove and dispose of, or alter, the "stabilizing brace" such that it cannot be reattached,
Turn the firearm into your local ATF office,
Destroy the firearm,
Register the firearm tax-free by May 31, 2023.
The option to register the firearm tax-free pursuant to ATF Final Rule 2021R-08F will be discontinued in the eForms System effective May 31, 2023, at 11:59 p.m. (ET).

Not sure I understand what FPC is looking for clarification on...does anyone under the issue? I thought injunction meant injunction from enforcing this provision...help?

japantiger said:

---

Not sure I understand what FPC is looking for clarification on...does anyone under the issue? I thought injunction meant injunction from enforcing this provision...help?

---

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/federal-court-deals-blow-atf-pistol-brace-rule-gun-accessory-registration-deadline

Quote:

---

The full impact of the court's decision wasn't immediately clear. The order applied only to the plaintiffs in the case: two gun owners, a company that makes pistols with stabilizing braces, and a gun-rights group. The appeals court did not say whether the rule was blocked for others, including people who buy the guns from the company, Maxim Defense Industries, and members of the Firearms Policy Coalition.

FPC said in a statement the group is seeking clarification on who is covered under the scope of the injunction.

"We are very excited and encouraged by the Fifth Circuit's decision this morning," said Cody J. Wisniewski, senior attorney for constitutional litigation at FPC Action Foundation. "We intend to ask the court for additional information about who is covered under the injunction, but cannot stress enough just how important this decision is. The fight is far from over, but this is a huge victory in the battle against the ATF's unconstitutional and unlawful brace rule!"

---

japantiger said:

---

Not sure I understand what FPC is looking for clarification on...does anyone under the issue? I thought injunction meant injunction from enforcing this provision...help?

---

Clarification on who the injunction protects. (Who is covered)

Daddy-O5 said:

---

japantiger said:

---

Not sure I understand what FPC is looking for clarification on...does anyone under the issue? I thought injunction meant injunction from enforcing this provision...help?

---

Clarification on who the injunction protects. (Who is covered)

---

Right. Is it just protecting the plaintiffs in the lawsuit (and all possibly members of FPC, and when did they have to have been a member) or does the injunction protect all Americans?

4 said:

---

It's long past time for Texas to secede.

Win or lose, they aren't going to stop coming after our basic rights.

I don't want to be in a union with these people anymore. We have nothing in common and they can't be trusted as far as we can throw them. Why would we voluntarily stay in a union with them?

---

I believe that it is a myth (one I have been told since I was a child) that Texas reserves the right to secede. So, we are not voluntarily staying in the union. We have no legal choice.

Bregxit said:

---

javajaws said:

---

agsalaska said:

---

When this is all said and done and the courts rule against the ATF, I wonder what the ATF is going to do with their new list of people they have who voluntarily told them exactly what they own.

---

Or what happens to the free tax stamps you received? Will they become invalid? Or will they come asking for $200 later?

In my case, I was wanting to SBR most of my braced guns anyway so no big deal for me. For others I totally understand the hesitancy.

---

Just to clarify what seems to be a misconception. Folks submitting brace amnesty form 1s are not receiving a free stamp. There is no stamp on the approved form. They are receiving a "tax forebearance" on their approved form. Two issues with this:

1) This means they can and probably will come for the $200 later if the courts don't rule against this rule because of number 2...
2) ATF is not allowed to issue a tax forebearance.

---

Sure they are. It's written in the Gun Control Act of 68. The director can authorize amnesty periods waiving the excise tax. We've had one official books are open for everything amnesty after the GCA passed and several one offs for guns the ATF later reclassified as NFA. Most recent high profile example II can think of was the Street Sweeper shotguns in the mid 90s - 2001.

Quote:

---

Pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 7805(b), ATF. Ruls. 94-1 and 94-2 were issued prospectively with respect to the making, transfer, and special (occupational) taxes imposed by the NFA. Thus, although the classification of the three shotguns as NFA weapons was retroactive, the prospective application of the tax provisions allowed registration without payment of tax. ATF has contacted all purchasers of record of the shotguns to advise them of the classification of the weapons as destructive devices and that the weapons must be registered. ATF has registered approximately 8,200 of these weapons to date.

---

You can read that CFR they reference here: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2021-title26/pdf/USCODE-2021-title26-subtitleF-chap80-subchapA-sec7805.pdf

Quote:

---

It's official: the injunction granted in FPC's pistol brace lawsuit applies to ALL FPC MEMBERS. LET'S ****ING GO!!

Quote:

---

"We're incredibly excited to report that the Fifth Circuit has clarified that our injunction covers FPC's members and Maxim Defense's customers, as we have always argued for."

---

But remember, you MUST join BEFORE May 31st because the ATF can begin cracking down in mere days.
With this news, the jackboots at ATF will be RUSHING to burn whoever they can who does not enjoy protection under this injunction.

---

Removed a bunch of FPC promo, but this is the gist of the email just received

So...Donate $30 or more to the FPC by May 31?

So how long does the injunction provide relief for the plaintiffs/members?

Any idea how long $30 lasts?

Quote:

---

NEW ORLEANS, LA (May 26, 2023) Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) released a statement on the Fifth Circuit's Order clarifying that the Injunction Pending Appeal in Mock v. Garland applies to FPC's members, Maxim Defense's customers, and the individual plaintiffs' resident family members. The order, along with other case documents, can be viewed at FPCLaw.org.

FPC challenged ATF's administrative rule that seeks to reclassify "braced pistols" as "short-barreled rifles." In so doing, the rule would transform millions of peaceable people into felons overnight simply for owning a firearm that has been lawful to own for a decade, unless they either destroy their constitutionally protected property or comply with the NFA's onerous and unconstitutional requirements.
FPC has argued that the rule is a violation of both the U.S. Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act because it infringes upon the fundamental and natural rights of the People. Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief to secure their constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.

Per the Fifth Circuit's Order: "This clarification is granted essentially for the reasons concisely set forth in the May 25, 2023, Plaintiffs-Appellants' Reply to Their Opposed Motion for Clarification of Injunction Pending Appeal. . . Plaintiffs merely request clarification on whether their reading of the term Plaintiffs' to include the customers and members whose interests Plaintiffs Maxim Defense and Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC') have represented since day one of this litigation is correct.' That reading is correct. Also as requested, the term "Plaintiffs in this case" includes the individual plaintiffs' resident family members."

"We're incredibly excited to report that the Fifth Circuit has clarified that our injunction covers FPC's members and Maxim Defense's customers, as we have always argued for," said Cody J. Wisniewski, Senior Attorney for Constitutional Litigation. "This relief will offer protection while we continue to fight against ATF's overreach."

Individuals who would like to Join the FPC Grassroots Army and support important pro-rights lawsuits and programs can sign up at JoinFPC.org. Individuals and organizations wanting to support charitable efforts in support of the restoration of Second Amendment and other natural rights can also make a tax-deductible donation to the FPC Action Foundation. For more on FPC's lawsuits and other pro-Second Amendment initiatives, visit FPCLegal.org and follow FPC on Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube.
Firearms Policy Coalition (firearmspolicy.org), a 501(c)4 nonprofit organization, exists to create a world of maximal human liberty, defend constitutional rights, advance individual liberty, and restore freedom. FPC's efforts are focused on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and adjacent issues including freedom of speech, due process, unlawful searches and seizures, separation of powers, asset forfeitures, privacy, encryption, and limited government. The FPC team are next-generation advocates working to achieve the Organization's strategic objectives through litigation, research, scholarly publications, amicus briefing, legislative and regulatory action, grassroots activism, education, outreach, and other programs.

FPC Law (FPCLaw.org) is the nation's first and largest public interest legal team focused on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and the leader in the Second Amendment litigation and research space.

---

Fifth Circuit Clarifies that its Injunction Against ATF Pistol Brace Rule Covers FPC's Members - Firearms Policy Coalition

mosdefn14 said:

---

So...Donate $30 or more to the FPC by May 31?

---

I think that's for an annual membership, but I'm not 100% sure on that. I've donated a few times in the past year and have an account. Assuming that qualifies me as a member.

"Plaintiffs merely request clarification on whether their reading of the term Plaintiffs' to include the customers and members whose interests Plaintiffs Maxim Defense and Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC') have represented since day one of this litigation is correct.' That reading is correct."

This verbiage would indicate that the injunction is only applicable to FPC members that have been members since the first day this lawsuit was filed.

Unless I'm reading this wrong, it does not appear that joining FPC after the injunction would protect one.

Bregxit said:

---

Thanks for that. The gun lawyer video I saw was incorrect.

I still think they will come for the money though since these are indeed forbearances and not forgiveness or waivers. And again, no tax stamps are being issued whereas I think with the past amnesties they were. Do correct me if I am remembering wrong.

---

During the street sweeper amnesty, they were registered on Form 1s with no tax stamp since it was exempt. Any subsequent transfers would be tax paid.

I'm not sure about the 68 amnesty.

I wouldn't concerned about it being called a forbearance but who knows, we're living in the worst simulation right now

We don’t read the order that way. We have always represented all of our members in this case, not a subset. pic.twitter.com/2xQZR7eDMV

— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) May 26, 2023

4 said:

---

We always have a choice.

It's always voluntary for a free people.

It wasn't "legal" for the colonists to secede from Great Britain, but they did it anyway when they had enough of the tyranny.

---

Fair enough.

Daddy-O5 said:

---

We don’t read the order that way. We have always represented all of our members in this case, not a subset. pic.twitter.com/2xQZR7eDMV

— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) May 26, 2023

---

They have a serious financial interest in NOT reading it that way. And hopefully they are right, but it clearly says it applies to the "customers and members" represented by the plantiffs, "since day one".

Otherwise, the entire country could become members ipso facto.

Maybe an attorney experienced in this type of stuff can chime in with an opinion...


Further, the FPC in responding to the above tweet about having to be a member during the litigation, does not answer the question at all.

The question isn't whether or not this applies to all of their members, the question was whether or not it applies to people who WERE NOT MEMBERS at the time of the ruling.

I thought about that, and you're not wrong about their financial interest. However, the way they're presenting it I think they'd be walking a very fine line if they're knowingly misleading people about the facts of the injunction.

I also think there's very much a way that the "since day one" can still mean their customer base as a whole regardless of their membership timelines.

However, yes, not a lawyer here either. There's much smarter people on the board that could probably dissect this further. Will probably be some YouTube content out soon enough clarifying it as well from a third party standpoint.

Quote:

---

Daddy-O5,

We're sending you this email in light of today's opinion regarding who is covered by the pistol brace injunction in FPC's case.

If you are receiving this email, you are an active member per our records and covered by the injunction.

Should you have any questions, please contact our customer support team at support@firearmspolicy.org.

Also, please remember to encourage your friends and family to join as well at JoinFPC.org to be covered under the injunction.

Stay Free,

Firearms Policy Coalition

---

Again, yes they have a vested financial interest in more members and donations, but they're outright telling people to join so they can be covered. If they're wrong, or knowingly misleading people they could get themselves in deep sh*t. I'm not claiming I know that they're right, but they certainly seem to believe they are.