UPDATED, Aug 3rd, 2023 --- Pistol Brace Rule Court Status

USApat

Patriot Serving Patriots!
Exchange Privileges
Joined
May 21, 2022
Messages
1,473
Reaction score
1,592
Points
128
Don’t celebrate too soon, though! Unfortunately this temporary injunction applies only to the named plaintiffs . . . “…Preliminary Injunction Pending Appeal is GRANTED as to the Plaintiffs in this case.” It stays in effect — only for these plaintiffs — until an appeal in the case is ruled on. Stay tuned, because it’s at least a first real step and a first win, even if quite limited, in the right direction since the new ATF ruling was announced.


Very short document by the court. I don't think they have the full published version available yet.





View: https://youtu.be/ATFmPOQ9-68?t=44
 
Last edited:
If i was the plaintiff's attorney, I would make it a point to highlight to the court that the Director said you could take it off and keep it.
If it was a citizen who just testified under oath to something, the court would hold you to it, wouldn't they.
 
If i was the plaintiff's attorney, I would make it a point to highlight to the court that the Director said you could take it off and keep it.
If it was a citizen who just testified under oath to something, the court would hold you to it, wouldn't they.
The director perjured himself under sworn testimony that was televised nationally. He knew darn well he was not telling the truth. This was not an underling staff member's testimony, he's the director. Regardless of competence, he's the senior staff member and is the top authority and spokesperson for testifying under oath about the ATF's policies and rules.

For the average "Joe" firearm owner, his testimony on television is a lot more visible publicly than the fine print on a 300+ page "rule" published in the federal register. If someone were to be arrested because they had a brace sitting in their cabinet unattached to a pistol based on listening to the director's televised sworn testimony, it would seem to me that person would have a cause of action against the director and should be able to sue him and/or the ATF for misrepresentation. Arguably fraudulent misrepresenation and not just misrepresentation.

Unfortunately, by the time the suit was argued, that person would be in their 3rd year serving a 10 year prison sentence. They will be going for maximum sentences on early pistol brace infractions to use early prosecutions as a deterrent for others. Just like the DOJ is seeking 25 year maximum sentences to some of the oath keepers for Jan 6th. I believe the sentencing hearings are this week sometime.

But yes, I agree with your post. We are not privy to the verbal arguments by attorneys in court about this brace injunction, but I can't imagine they did not include the director's comments in their arguments for an injunction.
 
Last edited:
GOA won an injunction this evening. GOA members are covered with this injunction. Awaiting the formal documents from the court and the relevant links, but here's a video from one of the guys following all this.



View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-qU_eglv80
 
If you haven't joined GOA or Firearm's Policy Coalition, you should consider joining one by midnight tonight. I would suggest Firearm's Policy Coalition because their board met yesterday and made a decision to make all memberships retroactive and dated back to June 2022 which is on or about the time they filed their suit. So the date of your membership will be from then to the end of this year 2023 when you will have to renew it again to stay active.


This was done by the Board due to the wording of the injunction by the 5th Circuit. There was some ambiguity in the words in the injunction to where it could possibly be interpreted that the injunction would only apply to members that were around at the beginning of their suit.

Here is the link again. The minimum amount to become a member is $30.




=============================================
More info below. And the entire PDF and the Order issued in the eleventh hour on May 31, 2023 can be read at the bottom of this page:




The Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) pistol brace rule that would see millions of Americans become felons overnight was dealt another devastating blow in a Texas District Court. Gun Owners of America (GOA), Gun Owners Foundation (GOF), and the state of Texas successfully won a preliminary injunction (PI) against the new regulation.

“For these reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction, (Dkt. No. 16). Defendants are ENJOINED from enforcing the Final Rule
against the private Plaintiffs in this case, including its current members and their resident family members, and individuals employed directly by the State of Texas or its agencies. The preliminary injunction will remain in effect pending resolution of the expedited appeal in Mock v. Garland,” the order reads


The victory comes one week after the Firearms Policy Coalition successfully secured a preliminary injunction from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals for its members against the ATF overreach.

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has also secured a preliminary injunction from a District Court in the same Circuit.​

Late Wednesday, the ruling on the injunction was clarified to include all SAF members, meaning that members of three of the most prominent gun rights groups are now exempt from the pistol brace rule for the time being.

ATF Legal Shortcomings​

Instead of arguing that the Plaintiffs would not be likely to succeed on the merits of the case or that the plaintiffs would not suffer irreparably harmed by the new rule, the government relied on attacking the standing of the Plaintiffs. The ATF tried to argue that they believed that GOA and GOF did not have a traditional membership and therefore lacked standing to bring a suit against the pistol brace rule. GOA’s lawyers responded that GOA did offer a traditional membership option.


The government responded that it was unaware that GOA had a traditional membership, and it would be unfair for the court to consider that GOA had a membership because the government would not have time to respond!?

Many legal experts saw this as a “Hail Mary” by the ATF’s council. Since a panel of three judges in the Fifth Circuit Court already decided that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of the case and would suffer irreparable harm in Mock v. Garland, attacking standing is likely the only path the government saw could lead to victory in the case.

Even though GOA won a substantial victory against the ATF, the gun rights group was not completely satisfied. They had asked the court for a nationwide injunction for its members and all Americans who owned or wanted to own a pistol equipped with a brace, not just its members. The group vowed to keep fighting back against draconian regulations enacted by the ATF without oversight from Congress.

With the FPC injunction in Mock v. Garland and the GOA injunction in Texas v. ATF along with the SAF injunction, millions of Americans are now protected from ATF overreach turning the new rule into a paper tiger.

The ATF will likely appeal the District Judge’s decision, but the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals is openly hostile towards the ATF, making Fiat law through the rule making process, in Cargill v. Garland, which challenged the ATF’s bump stock rule, the Fifth Circuit ruled by a margin of 13 to 3 that the government overstepped its power by violating the rule of lenity and the Administrative Procedures Act (APA).

There are two other cases in other circuits. The Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition (FRAC) is suing in the Sixth Circuit, and a group of private citizens is suing in the Eleventh Circuit.
 
Last edited:
The director perjured himself under sworn testimony that was televised nationally. He knew darn well he was not telling the truth. This was not an underling staff member's testimony, he's the director. Regardless of competence, he's the senior staff member and is the top authority and spokesperson for testifying under oath about the ATF's policies and rules.

For the average "Joe" firearm owner, his testimony on television is a lot more visible publicly than the fine print on a 300+ page "rule" published in the federal register. If someone were to be arrested because they had a brace sitting in their cabinet unattached to a pistol based on listening to the director's televised sworn testimony, it would seem to me that person would have a cause of action against the director and should be able to sue him and/or the ATF for misrepresentation. Arguably fraudulent misrepresenation and not just misrepresentation.

Unfortunately, by the time the suit was argued, that person would be in their 3rd year serving a 10 year prison sentence. They will be going for maximum sentences on early pistol brace infractions to use early prosecutions as a deterrent for others. Just like the DOJ is seeking 25 year maximum sentences to some of the oath keepers for Jan 6th. I believe the sentencing hearings are this week sometime.

But yes, I agree with your post. We are not privy to the verbal arguments by attorneys in court about this brace injunction, but I can't imagine they did not include the director's comments in their arguments for an injunction.
Having a brace in a cabinet being a violation is absurd. With that logic, anyone who owns an AR barrel less than 16" long, and also owns an AR rifle, is in possession of an unregistered SBR. It seems that they are trying to ban the short barrels rather than the braces. If someone has a true AR pistol, with the pistol buffer tube (that won't accept a brace or stock), and also owns a full size AR, then again it is construed through this line of thinking that the person has an SBR, even though they have NO intention of mixing and matching parts to make an illegal firearm.

Tell me I'm incorrect - please!
 
Having a brace in a cabinet being a violation is absurd. With that logic, anyone who owns an AR barrel less than 16" long, and also owns an AR rifle, is in possession of an unregistered SBR. It seems that they are trying to ban the short barrels rather than the braces. If someone has a true AR pistol, with the pistol buffer tube (that won't accept a brace or stock), and also owns a full size AR, then again it is construed through this line of thinking that the person has an SBR, even though they have NO intention of mixing and matching parts to make an illegal firearm.

Tell me I'm incorrect - please!
cult recon GIF by South Park
 
Attached is a video published on August 2, 2023 with updates to 5th Circuit's Ruling and remanding the pistol brace rule back down to the lower court. They direct the court to make a decision within sixty days. The injunction is still in place for the next sixty days, or until the lower court issues a ruling..

I have indexed the video to start with the ruling by the 5th Circuit. You may want to rewind to the start and watch the whole video. The beginning is technical, but does a good job describing the reasoning behind the court's decision.


View: https://youtu.be/rgJGCu7eUTw?t=886
 
Back
Top