ATF Just Released Their Brace Ruling

[DavidH]

I do believe at some point, a Federal Judge will slap another injunction on *em, leading to similar *Cease & Desist* notice as we*ve recently seen with the 80% Lowers/Frames lawsuits. The *AFT* has been on mission of writing its own laws with the help of Biden regime. And both Congress & Federal many Federal judges don*t like it!

[ExFlyinguy]

Federal Judge that issued a favorable ruling in the Frames & Receivers case in TX throws the ATF a bone in the Brace case.

Mock v. Garland involving a Texas Federal District Court declining to order a preliminary injunction against the ATF’s pistol brace rule

I'd give a better summary but to be honest it was a bit above my comprehension level.

*It's been my position that the ATF had a better case of ruling against braces than they did with a well defined definition of "machineguns" and trying to reinterpret bumpstocks to meet that definition.

[John_Wick]

Federal Judge that issued a favorable ruling in the Frames & Receivers case in TX throws the ATF a bone in the Brace case.



I'd give a better summary but to be honest it was a bit above my comprehension level.

*It's been my position that the ATF had a better case of ruling against braces than they did with a well defined definition of "machineguns" and trying to reinterpret bumpstocks to meet that definition.

In short, the court said they've always been SBRs and reiterated everything that goes along with them being SBRs.

[ray h]

In short, the court said they've always been SBRs and reiterated everything that goes along with them being SBRs.

So the court said they've always been SBRs, but for the last ten years the ATF said they were pistols?
I'm not sure that's at all what's gong on. I think some arguments where weak and stupid, that's all.

[HKusp 45]

So the court said they've always been SBRs, but for the last ten years the ATF said they were pistols?
I'm not sure that's at all what's gong on. I think some arguments where weak and stupid, that's all.

there should be no argument though, they are no more or less dangerous that they were with or without a brace or even a stock for that matter. None of that changes the power of any particular round.

[Walleye Hunter]

In short, the court said they've always been SBRs and reiterated everything that goes along with them being SBRs.

If that's the case, laches should apply.

[HanzMcFeely]

Federal Judge that issued a favorable ruling in the Frames & Receivers case in TX throws the ATF a bone in the Brace case.



I'd give a better summary but to be honest it was a bit above my comprehension level.

*It's been my position that the ATF had a better case of ruling against braces than they did with a well defined definition of "machineguns" and trying to reinterpret bumpstocks to meet that definition.

[bogey1]

$$$$

[JAKIII]

So, what's the consensus now for anyone here with an SBR... pay the $200 and get the tax stamp?

Asking for a friend.

[Ilikebuckets]

So, what's the consensus now for anyone here with an SBR... pay the $200 and get the tax stamp?

Asking for a friend.

Nope, not going to reinforce their belief that they can arbitrarily change rules and definitions anytime they like. They were clear 5 years ago that braces were fine. That was their ruling. Millions bought the pistols after that ruling. If they had said no then most people would not have bought the guns, companies would not have spent money and time making braces and companies would not have spent money and time advertising and selling guns with braces.

They created an entire industry with their original rulings. Submitting now and registering guns that were legal 2 months ago as SBR*s is not something I am okay with. It validates their power to alter rulings as they see fit.

I will remove the brace and be done with it. Hopefully the courts will not agree that they have the power to arbitrarily change rules that impact the lives of millions.