pistol brace overturned?
- Thread starter KYregular
- Start date
armoredman
Member
badkarmamib
Member
But, the FPC are one of the plaintiffs, lawsuits cost. So, if you can spare some change, sounds like a worthy cause to support, and get the short-term benefit at the same time.
armoredman
Member
Indeed they do, have donated more than once to them.
THIS!
This is the point of Activism, what can we do to change unconstitutional firearms restrictions by government.
FPC, SAF, and GOA have injunctions covering their members. As a life member of SAF and an FPC member I'm included in both. Our financial support funds these lawsuits that help us.
Last edited:
armoredman
Member
No, not at all, we want the absolute final ruling that nails the coffin shut on this unconstitutional act to apply to every legal citizen of these United States, absolutely.
WestKentucky
Member
I haven’t kept up to date on this, but with a quick search I don’t see the language similar to what I have seen before which basically says that members at the time of the injunction are covered under the injunction, but new members are not. It seems like FPC has done a lot of the heavy lifting on this so they have likely earned a bit of my money either way, but I just want to understand that but about whether I join and I’m covered before I jump in with a membership and reassemble my gun into a braced pistol.
LiveLife
Member
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, just a random layperson posting on THR
Under the newest injunction, looks to me "all" members of FPC and "all" customers of Maxim Defense products are covered by the injunction (I take it any product they sell) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...ace-rule-lawsuits.920838/page-3#post-12729149
... the Court’s injunction extends to enjoin enforcement of the Final Rule against the Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc. and all of its members whose interests it has represented since day one of this litigation ...
1) ENJOINED from implementing and/or enforcing against the Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc. and all of its members the provisions in 27 C.F.R. §§ 478.11 and 479.11 that the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has determined are unlawful;
2) ENJOINED from implementing and/or enforcing against Maxim Defense Industries, LLC and any downstream customers of Maxim Defense Industries, LLC (including all direct consumer purchasers and all intermediary distributors, dealers, retailers, and OEM purchasers of Maxim Defense products, and any of their respective customers) the provisions in 27 C.F.R. §§ 478.11 and 479.11 that the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has determined are unlawful;
2) ENJOINED from implementing and/or enforcing against Maxim Defense Industries, LLC and any downstream customers of Maxim Defense Industries, LLC (including all direct consumer purchasers and all intermediary distributors, dealers, retailers, and OEM purchasers of Maxim Defense products, and any of their respective customers) the provisions in 27 C.F.R. §§ 478.11 and 479.11 that the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has determined are unlawful;
LiveLife
Member
Great news!
Nationwide injunction issued - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...ace-rule-lawsuits.920838/page-4#post-12754567
Nationwide injunction issued - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...ace-rule-lawsuits.920838/page-4#post-12754567
"Fifth Circuit has already decided that the Final Rule violates the APA" ... (Bruen) ... public safety concerns must be addressed in ways that are lawful. This Rule is not.
Conclusion ... For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the Motion and STAYS the Rule in its entirety.
BRatigan
Member
Kacsmaryk said he is sympathetic to the ATF’s claims that the AR-pistol brace rule was intended to promote safety. However, he admonished the ATF, noting that “public safety concerns must be addressed in ways that are lawful.” He then concluded by pointing out that the ATF pistol brace rule “is not” lawful.
He issued a preliminary injunction against the rule and stayed the rule in its entirety.
The case is Britto v. ATF, No. 2:23-cv-19 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
He issued a preliminary injunction against the rule and stayed the rule in its entirety.
The case is Britto v. ATF, No. 2:23-cv-19 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
I've posted this video explanation on several threads, should have put it here 1st perhaps. Very good explain, brief history previous SCOTUS rulings i.e. Heller II etc. Laymen such as myself should have a good takeaway
www.youtube.com
BREAKING PISTOL BRACE INJUNCTION NATIONWIDE! This is NOT a drill!! Britto v. ATF
BREAKING PISTOL BRACE INJUNCTION NATIONWIDE! This is NOT a drill!! Britto v. ATF#atf #2ndamendment #pistolbrace Link to decisionhttps://t.co/kGvgcECRfRSuppo...
www.youtube.com
This is a good ruling, except for the people who took advantage of the free SBR registration period... they converted a pistol to an SBR, and I don't think there is going to be a way to get it unregistered as an SBR. Its gonna create some headaches for them.
Someone started a thread asking about that and it got shut down and he was told he should ask a lawyer. There's somewhere around a quarter million people in that position though, so I'm not sure if it actually makes sense for all of them to get lawyers to answer the same question. I've seen no evidence to suggest that SBR's registered under the amnesty fall under any different category than any other registered SBR. I'm not a lawyer though so....
Ha ha... "ask a lawyer" isn't really much of an answer, because this is new legal ground and lawyers aren't going to know, and their opinions are just opinions. I do not know of a way to unregister an SBR, and even if you did, who really thinks the ATF is going to purge their records? I think you could probably put a rifle length upper on it, and be ok legally, but its still registered, and the rifle barrel kind of defeats the original purpose of the weapon, ie, to have a short barrel. If you converted it back to a pistol, which I am not sure you can legally do once something is legally a rifle, its still on file with the ATF. Its definitely going to be uncharted waters to sail in.
That's kinda what I thought, especially since it's the same question for all of these folks, not just a few individuals.
OP
OP
KYregular
Member
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2018
- Messages
- 760
Being my 300 aac with a 10.5" barrel WAS my truck gun, I went ahead and stuck a 16" barrel on it. Am I going to changecit back? Soon as I do some damn judge will put a "stay" on THAT ruling somehow. Getting fed up with this crap.
People want absolute answers and there are none. All these cases are in the preliminary stages, and the opinions under discussion usually relate to preliminary injunctions, not a decision on the merits. Assuming you applied for your SBR designation or made your firearm compliant, I would caution against further alterations until the final ruling from USSC. Please note that even the language of the preliminary rulings may leave the impression that the effect is wider than the issuing court can enforce, so don't believe everything you see/read/hear and avoid needless risk.
What alterations would be illegal on a registered SBR? Obviously can't convert to full auto, or attach an unregistered suppressor, but other than that, I'm not aware of any alterations that would be illegal. It's where you can take it and whether it can be loaded that might come into question, not what you can do to it.
Please note that I am addressing both those who pursued the SBR "approval" and those who reconfigured.
It is my understanding that SBRs may be returned to a standard configuration at any time, and then may be transferred and transported without regard to SBR restrictions. While the ATF would like to be notified of the reconfiguration, I would like to be notified of a bank error in my favor, and the odds are likely similar. This is information gathered here, so I trust that @dogtown tom or others better versed in this field will set me straight if that is inaccurate.
It is my understanding that SBRs may be returned to a standard configuration at any time, and then may be transferred and transported without regard to SBR restrictions. While the ATF would like to be notified of the reconfiguration, I would like to be notified of a bank error in my favor, and the odds are likely similar. This is information gathered here, so I trust that @dogtown tom or others better versed in this field will set me straight if that is inaccurate.
dogtown tom
Member
correct
If you return your SBR to a standard configuration, does it stay registered with the ATF?
Ah, but that return to pistol configuration after being rebarreled would in reality be converting a 'rifle' to a pistol...........should anyone know of it. Like the man said: "Do what you're gonna do with due regard to the cop around the corner".
Yes. If you do that though, you can then cross state lines without notifying them.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked