State of Texas, Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, and Brady Brown vs. BATFE, United States Department of Justice, and Steven M. Dettelbach (Director of the BATFE)
This lawsuit was filed today in the 5th Circuit and appears to be the most comprehensive of all the lawsuits filed so far.
It worked in the 5th Circuit 💪🏽 More to follow The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily blocked the Biden administration’s rule from going into effect for the gun owners and groups who filed the lawsuit. The order came shortly before a deadline that would have required people to register stabilizing braces and pay a fee, or remove the braces from their weapons.
That's the key part of your post. The 5th didn't extend their temporary block beyond those who participated in the lawsuit.
The judge has been asked to clarify who is protected by the ruling. The judge will be issuing this clarification on June 2.
I would recommend that you give the brace to a friend that doesn't have an AR pistol.
I find it interesting to hear law-abiding gun owners discussing how to evade the law.
There is nothing illegal about giving a pistol stabilizing brace to a friend.
What is the point of giving it to a friend?
Given the lack of clear understanding of the ATF's ruling and the conflicting and changing statements from the ATF Director and the ATF's website, many are concerned that simply removing the brace will not put them in compliance. Although the ATF Director said this was acceptable to Congress, the written guidance, which has changed at least twice since the ruling was first published, says differently.
The concern is that having both a brace and a pistol in the same location could be considered Constructive Possession.
Edit: Current ATF website (it has changed twice since 1/31):
Quote:
This rule does not affect “stabilizing braces” that are objectively designed and intended as a “stabilizing brace” for use by individuals with disabilities, and not for shouldering the weapon as a rifle. Such stabilizing braces are designed to conform to the arm and not as a buttstock. This rule is effective on January 31, 2023, the date it was published in the Federal Register. If the firearm with the “stabilizing brace” is a short-barreled rifle, affected person have 120 days from the date of publication to register the firearm tax-free, which is May 31, 2023. Other 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,
ATF Director's testimony (26 sec mark):
"Detaches weapon from the brace and keeps them apart."
That's different than remove and and dispose or alter. Suffer Well.
I would recommend that you give the brace to a friend that doesn't have an AR pistol.
I find it interesting to hear law-abiding gun owners discussing how to evade the law.
There is nothing illegal about giving a pistol stabilizing brace to a friend.
What is the point of giving it to a friend?
Given the lack of clear understanding of the ATF's ruling and the conflicting and changing statements from the ATF Director and the ATF's website, many are concerned that simply removing the brace will not put them in compliance. Although the ATF Director said this was acceptable to Congress, the written guidance, which has changed at least twice since the ruling was first published, says differently.
The concern is that having both a brace and a pistol in the same location could be considered Constructive Possession.
So it may not be currently against the law, the point of giving it to a friend would be to evade the law as it might currently be interpreted or in the future. I think EB makes a valid point.
I would recommend that you give the brace to a friend that doesn't have an AR pistol.
I find it interesting to hear law-abiding gun owners discussing how to evade the law.
There is nothing illegal about giving a pistol stabilizing brace to a friend.
What is the point of giving it to a friend?
Given the lack of clear understanding of the ATF's ruling and the conflicting and changing statements from the ATF Director and the ATF's website, many are concerned that simply removing the brace will not put them in compliance. Although the ATF Director said this was acceptable to Congress, the written guidance, which has changed at least twice since the ruling was first published, says differently.
The concern is that having both a brace and a pistol in the same location could be considered Constructive Possession.
So it may not be currently against the law, the point of giving it to a friend would be to evade the law as it might currently be interpreted or in the future. I think EB makes a valid point.
Maybe the ATF Director has a clearer understanding than anyone, see my edit in the above post. Suffer Well.
I would recommend that you give the brace to a friend that doesn't have an AR pistol.
I find it interesting to hear law-abiding gun owners discussing how to evade the law.
What part of this is against the law? And if you can point me to the law about pistol braces, I would appreciate it.
It just reminds me of when folks have a tuner car that won't pass emissions in their county so as a grown adult registers their vehicle in their parent's address like they're a 40 year old living at home in a county in the sticks that doesn't have emission testing.
Judge O'Connor in the Mock vs. Garland case just clarified that the injunction applies to all members of the Firearm Policy Coalition, all customers of Maxim Defense, the named plaintiffs and the other people that live with them.
Judge O'Connor in the Mock vs. Garland case just clarified that the injunction applies to all members of the Firearm Policy Coalition, all customers of Maxim Defense, the named plaintiffs and the other people that live with them.
There will be more next week as we see a chink in the ATF tin-foil armor.
The 120 day amnesty is over and grand total of 0.6%-0.8% registered their pistols to the SBR category.
Man, the, "law and order" party is going to be outraged.
Or they just removed them.
Removal of the pistol brace isn’t enough. You would need to get rid of it or destroy it.
I would guess that several million people don't pay attention to the changing ATF rules and have no idea that their pistol with a stabilizing brace attached is now a felony.
The 120 day amnesty is over and grand total of 0.6%-0.8% registered their pistols to the SBR category.
Man, the, "law and order" party is going to be outraged.
Or they just removed them.
Removal of the pistol brace isn’t enough. You would need to get rid of it or destroy it.
I would guess that several million people don't pay attention to the changing ATF rules and have no idea that their pistol with a stabilizing brace attached is now a felony.
Ah, my misunderstanding.
I think you are right, most people are just not watching the rules changing.
Even the police here in MD didn't realize the new restrictions on CCW.
The 120 day amnesty is over and grand total of 0.6%-0.8% registered their pistols to the SBR category.
Man, the, "law and order" party is going to be outraged.
Or they just removed them.
Removal of the pistol brace isn’t enough. You would need to get rid of it or destroy it.
I would guess that several million people don't pay attention to the changing ATF rules and have no idea that their pistol with a stabilizing brace attached is now a felony.
Earlier you said "I would recommend that you give the brace to a friend that doesn't have an AR pistol."
Maybe you could "get rid of it" by "giving" it to a "friend". Nudge, nudge, wink wink, "law-abiding" indeed.
The 120 day amnesty is over and grand total of 0.6%-0.8% registered their pistols to the SBR category.
Man, the, "law and order" party is going to be outraged.
Or they just removed them.
Removal of the pistol brace isn’t enough. You would need to get rid of it or destroy it.
I would guess that several million people don't pay attention to the changing ATF rules and have no idea that their pistol with a stabilizing brace attached is now a felony.
Earlier you said "I would recommend that you give the brace to a friend that doesn't have an AR pistol."
Maybe you could "get rid of it" by "giving" it to a "friend". Nudge, nudge, wink wink, "law-abiding" indeed.
I think the ATF director, in testifying to congress, said that you could simply remove the brace and "keep it separate". This is different than what was previously written. Based on his testimony, you wouldn't need to destroy the brace nor give it to another person.
The 120 day amnesty is over and grand total of 0.6%-0.8% registered their pistols to the SBR category.
Man, the, "law and order" party is going to be outraged.
Or they just removed them.
Removal of the pistol brace isn’t enough. You would need to get rid of it or destroy it.
I would guess that several million people don't pay attention to the changing ATF rules and have no idea that their pistol with a stabilizing brace attached is now a felony.
Earlier you said "I would recommend that you give the brace to a friend that doesn't have an AR pistol."
Maybe you could "get rid of it" by "giving" it to a "friend". Nudge, nudge, wink wink, "law-abiding" indeed.
I think the ATF director, in testifying to congress, said that you could simply remove the brace and "keep it separate". This is different than what was previously written. Based on his testimony, you wouldn't need to destroy the brace nor give it to another person.