Anyone register a pistol brace?

[Chuckie]

FPC AND FPCAF WIN: Fifth Circuit Rules that ATF Pistol Brace Rule is Likely Illegal

Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and FPC Action Foundation (FPCAF) announced that the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in Mock v. Garland, finding that FPC and FPCAF are likely to win on the merits of their lawsuit challenging ATF’s pistol brace rule.

www.firearmspolicy.org

" . . . are likely to defeat ATF’s pistol brace rule when the merits of this case are finally heard,"

Nothing has been won yet people so don't get too excited about what for now is still just a hope.

 

[JD8]

" . . . are likely to defeat ATF’s pistol brace rule when the merits of this case are finally heard,"

Nothing has been won yet people so don't get too excited about what for now is still just a hope.

Nobody is getting overly excited lol, but if one understands what has transpired, it's definitely a step in the right direction.

 

[Blue Heeler]

But will the Court even consider the case?

Anything is possible but I think Biden’s ATF will force the Court’s hand. Considering the Court’s position on not letting agencies determine “law” and how this “rule” does not follow the APA, the Court would take it If it goes that far.

 

[OK Corgi Rancher]

Sadly, since we don’t live in Texas, Mississippi, or Alabama, this really doesn’t matter too much unless the Supreme Court rules on it or our district does.

Not entirely true... The same court has already said that customers/members of the various plaintiffs are covered under the ruling regardless of where they live.

 

[OK Corgi Rancher]

I'm a little doubtful they will. This would seriously strip power from the feds and the Scrotus seems to shy away from biting the hand that feeds them.

I don't think that's accurate. The EPA got a smackdown from SCOTUS in WV vs EPA. The court basically said the EPA didn't have the authority to make rules that were essentially enforced as law and said that sort of thing is up to congress.

We also had the granddaddy of all gun rights cases in Bruen.

Both of these are recent examples of SCOTUS taking away power from regulatory agencies. I'd say it's highly likely the SCOTUS will hear this case eventually.

 

[Honey Badger]

I hate to let a good thread die. Whats happening with the brace rule?

 

[JEVapa]

Trump indictments is what happened. Everyone forgot about it

 

[Honey Badger]

Most likely!

 

[Perplexed]

I hate to let a good thread die. Whats happening with the brace rule?

It’s a bit confusing, but essentially, the Fifth Circuit issued a preliminary injunction at the beginning of August, to run for 60 days, protecting the plaintiffs (SAF and GOA, basically) and their members from ATF enforcement of the arm brace rule (not law!) Then the Fifth Circuit said the ATF had violated the APA, and remanded the case (Mock v. Garland) back to the district court judge to reconsider the motion for a preliminary injunction against the ATF, presumably to be effective for the duration of the case. The Fifth Circuit also noted that preventing the ATF from enforcing the rule against some, but not all, of the US population that owns arm braces could create a very confusing situation (hint: make the preliminary injunction effective for all arm brace owners, not just members of the plaintiff groups.) So the case is back at the district court level, while both parties prepare for the next round of arguments before the original district judge. The prevailing sentiment is that the plaintiffs have a compelling argument, so the district judge will be under pressure to rule accordingly. Now we wait and see what happens there.

If I got any of that wrong, please feel free to correct me.

 

[Honey Badger]

It’s a bit confusing, but essentially, the Fifth Circuit issued a preliminary injunction at the beginning of August, to run for 60 days, protecting the plaintiffs (SAF and GOA, basically) and their members from ATF enforcement of the arm brace rule (not law!) Then the Fifth Circuit said the ATF had violated the APA, and remanded the case (Mock v. Garland) back to the district court judge to reconsider the motion for a preliminary injunction against the ATF, presumably to be effective for the duration of the case. The Fifth Circuit also noted that preventing the ATF from enforcing the rule against some, but not all, of the US population that owns arm braces could create a very confusing situation (hint: make the preliminary injunction effective for all arm brace owners, not just members of the plaintiff groups.) So the case is back at the district court level, while both parties prepare for the next round of arguments before the original district judge. The prevailing sentiment is that the plaintiffs have a compelling argument, so the district judge will be under pressure to rule accordingly. Now we wait and see what happens there.

If I got any of that wrong, please feel free to correct me.

It sounds like you have the most, and best knowledge of the situation. Thank you for the update. It is going to be interesting to see how this all plays out.