Mr. Dubi said:
What does this mean for folks who received an amnesty form 1?
That the government knows they have it and know where it is, and where to go to get it when the ATF creates their next version of the rule.
Update on pistol brace?
95,639 Views |
797 Replies |
Last: 5 mo ago by tandy miller
That the government knows they have it and know where it is, and where to go to get it when the ATF creates their next version of the rule.
So say a friend of mine has one of these weapons of mass destruction. I know he took no action other than signing up for some group that he cannot even remember who had some sort of injunction against the rule. Ummm...where does this guy stand now?
Again, asking for a friend.
Again, asking for a friend.
Today, unfortunately, many Americans have good reason to fear that they will be victimized if they are unable to protect themselves. And today, no less than in 1791, the Second Amendment guarantees their right to do so. - Justice Samuel Alito 2022
JB!98 said:
So say a friend of mine has one of these weapons of mass destruction. I know he took no action other than signing up for some group that he cannot even remember who had some sort of injunction against the rule. Ummm...where does this guy stand now?
Again, asking for a friend.
The friend is still leaving it in the closet and not taking it out so as to prevent a hassle. Or else popping a longer barrel on it and betting no one bothers to look twice.
If said friend was a member of FPC, or any other plaintiff in this specific case, then they are covered under this preliminary injunction is my understanding.
lp01 said:
If said friend was a member of FPC, or any other plaintiff in this specific case, then they are covered under this preliminary injunction is my understanding.
My friend is. Thanks.
Today, unfortunately, many Americans have good reason to fear that they will be victimized if they are unable to protect themselves. And today, no less than in 1791, the Second Amendment guarantees their right to do so. - Justice Samuel Alito 2022
ShouldastayedataTm said:
That the government knows they have it and know where it is, and where to go to get it when the ATF creates their next version of the rule.
Once you are already on a list, how much does it really matter? We already had several registered thingies
True. But registered things that are still legal versus registered things they will continue to try and make illegal.are different animals...
Mr. Dubi said:ShouldastayedataTm said:
That the government knows they have it and know where it is, and where to go to get it when the ATF creates their next version of the rule.
Once you are already on a list, how much does it really matter? We already had several registered thingies
They recently gave a dude 2.5 years in club fed for possession of an Evo with a stock that he didn't register. He had two legal suppressors but it didn't matter that he'd already been through the background check BS. ATF will run your life and shoot your dog if given even the slightest excuse. They are as souless and rotten as the scumbag gun control advocates that they work for.
This. I genuinely do not understand why anyone who already owned an NFA item would not Form 1 before the impending brace rule. To me the downside way outweighs the positive. to each their own thoughaggieforester05 said:Mr. Dubi said:ShouldastayedataTm said:
That the government knows they have it and know where it is, and where to go to get it when the ATF creates their next version of the rule.
Once you are already on a list, how much does it really matter? We already had several registered thingies
They recently gave a dude 2.5 years in club fed for possession of an Evo with a stock that he didn't register. He had two legal suppressors but it didn't matter that he'd already been through the background check BS. ATF will run your life and shoot your dog if given even the slightest excuse. They are as souless and rotten as the scumbag gun control advocates that they work for.
Mr. Dubi said:ShouldastayedataTm said:
That the government knows they have it and know where it is, and where to go to get it when the ATF creates their next version of the rule.
Once you are already on a list, how much does it really matter? We already had several registered thingies
It's not about being on a list, it's about providing an inventory. Just because you're on a list doesn't mean they know what's in your safe.
I have not followed this thread in a while and I understand it may not make a lot of sense, but this is one list that I will never be on. No way. And it really sucks because I have a fairly bad case of tinnitus and would benefit greatly from using silencers, but no way.
I also do not have a CCW for the same reason.
You guys have more faith than I do.
I also do not have a CCW for the same reason.
You guys have more faith than I do.
LEGAL ALERT: A Texas federal judge has issued a preliminary injunction against the ATF's pistol brace rule, staying it "in its entirety" while the case continues. https://t.co/JHCq83EGde pic.twitter.com/eMvHRm91wB
— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) November 9, 2023
Drives me nuts that they post that, but don't post what it and for whom it means anything.
Red Pear Realty
Joined:
Aug 2, 2018
Posts:
3,777
User Profile
Private Message
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sponsor
AG
Watch this:
https://www.youtube.com/live/QHmspVYhM4Y
https://www.youtube.com/live/QHmspVYhM4Y
Sponsor Message: We Split Commissions. Full Service Agents in Austin, Bryan-College Station, Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston and San Antonio. Red Pear Realty
General consensus right now seems to be the district court of northern Texas has issued a nationwide all encompassing injunction, basically meaning the ATF cannot enforce the pistol brace rule anywhere. However, local laws around such things are still in place meaning you are still screwed in places like California, Massachusettes, etc. But federally the brace rule is currently injoined and not enforceable. One link already posted by Red Pear above. Others to follow...
Here's what I got from the video.
- Video says 5th circuit issued a stay (Texas, La, Ms).
- Video says the 2A lawyers are interpreting it as saying it's nationwide.
- Video indicates outside of 5th circuit, it's up to interpretation.
- Video says their opinion is this will go to the Supreme Court because ATF wouldn't want this in the fifth circuit. for an appeal.
Red Pear Realty
Joined:
Aug 2, 2018
Posts:
3,777
User Profile
Private Message
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sponsor
AG
At a bare minimum, the ruling covers the fifth circuit area of which Texas is a part. I'm not an attorney, but I would also think it is a nationwide injunction.
Sponsor Message: We Split Commissions. Full Service Agents in Austin, Bryan-College Station, Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston and San Antonio. Red Pear Realty
We are so back https://t.co/PtB4xgtT2x
— Palmetto State Armory (@palmettoarmory) November 13, 2023
Should have never left. A bunch of taxpayer money and gun rights lobby money was transferred to attorneys and reputable businesses were damaged. All for something that has zero impact on public safety and we ended up right back where we started. Gun control advocates and their goons are scum bags of the highest order.Daddy-O5 said:We are so back https://t.co/PtB4xgtT2x
— Palmetto State Armory (@palmettoarmory) November 13, 2023
Red Pear Realty
Joined:
Aug 2, 2018
Posts:
3,777
User Profile
Private Message
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sponsor
AG
Don't forget the fudds that were praising the ban. Lots of folks (even some on this board) are silly enough to think we should only be able to own single shot rifles for hunting and that the grabbers will stop there.
Sponsor Message: We Split Commissions. Full Service Agents in Austin, Bryan-College Station, Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston and San Antonio. Red Pear Realty
FORT WORTH, TX (June 13, 2024) Today, Firearms Policy Coalition announced a major legal victory in its Mock v. Garland lawsuit challenging the Biden Administration's "pistol brace" ban rule issued by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). In the decision, United States District Court Judge Reed O'Connor granted summary judgment in favor of FPC and its co-plaintiffs and issued a final judgment and order vacating the ATF's rule. The case and opinion can be found at FPCLegal.org.
"The Biden Administration's ATF hates us so much that it lawlessly acted to turn millions of gun owners into felons, but FPC and our members ran towards the fire and defeated this evil," said FPC President Brandon Combs. "Today's order shows that our community can take on an immoral government and win. FPC members should be proud of what was accomplished today. We look forward to defending this victory on appeal and up to the Supreme Court, just as we have in other cases."
Today's victory is one in a line of FPC community successes against the Biden Administration. Indeed, the United States Supreme Court recently agreed to hear one of FPC's cases in which it prevailed in the courts below.
The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Cody Wisniewski of FPC Action Foundation, Bradley Benbrook and Stephen Duvernay of the Benbrook Law Group, and R. Brent Cooper and Benjamin Passey of Cooper & Scully. Plaintiffs in this case are two individual FPC members, Maxim Defense, and FPC. FPC Action Foundation represented the Plaintiffs, alongside Benbrook Law. FPC expects the Mock decision and remedy to be appealed by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ).
HAHA!! **** YOU ATF!!!
"The Biden Administration's ATF hates us so much that it lawlessly acted to turn millions of gun owners into felons, but FPC and our members ran towards the fire and defeated this evil," said FPC President Brandon Combs. "Today's order shows that our community can take on an immoral government and win. FPC members should be proud of what was accomplished today. We look forward to defending this victory on appeal and up to the Supreme Court, just as we have in other cases."
Today's victory is one in a line of FPC community successes against the Biden Administration. Indeed, the United States Supreme Court recently agreed to hear one of FPC's cases in which it prevailed in the courts below.
The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Cody Wisniewski of FPC Action Foundation, Bradley Benbrook and Stephen Duvernay of the Benbrook Law Group, and R. Brent Cooper and Benjamin Passey of Cooper & Scully. Plaintiffs in this case are two individual FPC members, Maxim Defense, and FPC. FPC Action Foundation represented the Plaintiffs, alongside Benbrook Law. FPC expects the Mock decision and remedy to be appealed by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ).
HAHA!! **** YOU ATF!!!
GeorgiAg
Joined:
Mar 13, 2000
Posts:
29,971
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Great news! Now let's just hope and pray that the bump stock ban is overturned by SCOTUS tomorrow. That will have implications far beyond just bump stocks.
It is great news.
Friendly reminder though that your right to self defense and own the tools to do so is an inherent, natural right of all free people, not subject to the whims of any geriatric politician, unelected bureaucrat , or court appointed by previously mentioned geriatrics.
Just in case some other court in the future is not possessed with common sense.
Friendly reminder though that your right to self defense and own the tools to do so is an inherent, natural right of all free people, not subject to the whims of any geriatric politician, unelected bureaucrat , or court appointed by previously mentioned geriatrics.
Just in case some other court in the future is not possessed with common sense.
FPC.
And the millions who did not comply with this nonsense in the first place.
And the millions who did not comply with this nonsense in the first place.
When the ruling happened I went ahead and filed a form 1. I own a suppressor and a trust so it wasn't that difficult, but an unnecessary expense.
That was 14 months ago. I still do not have approval.
That was 14 months ago. I still do not have approval.
I didn't do sh*t.
Supposed to be a thumbs up
Supposed to be a thumbs up
theJonatron said:
When the ruling happened I went ahead and filed a form 1. I own a suppressor and a trust so it wasn't that difficult, but an unnecessary expense.
That was 14 months ago. I still do not have approval.
You haven't gotten a paid form 1 back for 14 months?
Featured Stories
See All
SEC Round-Up: Dawgs facing possible playoff elimination this week
by Olin Buchanan
33:59
6h ago
805
Pick 'Em & Rip 'Em sponsored by PrizePicks: Week 12
by Matthew Dawson
14:58
6h ago
891
Assessing Earley's first signing class at the helm of Texas A&M baseball
by Ryan Brauninger
Tom Kazansky 2012
Number of football tickets A&M provided to t.u.
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
90