Suits against ATF brace rule

[BAJ475]

Numerous suits have been filed. This thread is to provide links to those suits. I will start the list with a link to a suit filed by some organizations and various AGs including the Montana AG. I will leave it to others to expand on the list of suits. Mods, please combine if this is a dupe. Link https://dojmt.gov/wp-content/uploads/Complaint-c1.pdf

[Fyathyrio]

Texas & GOA, filed in 5th circuit, they are quite gun friendly.

[Fyathyrio]

Another one, also from Texas. The 5th Circuit, the gift that keeps on giving!

[kakpataka]

Brace rule explained -Texas Gun Experience
Pistol Brace Update from Recent ATF Training

TGE has attended the ATFs webinar and we want to share the information with our customers. We have already noticed all sorts of assumptions and false information online. Our goal is to better inform our customers of the new rule and to clear up any confusion in order to make a better decision. This letter is not to be confused with support for the ATF rule. We do not support rules that restrict responsible gun owners' rights.
Recently, the ATF has made pistol-braced firearms into SBRs (short-barreled rifles) overnight as of January 31st. The 120 days have started which means it gives the possessor of a pistol-braced firearm 120 days to be in compliance with the new rule. A firearm will be considered an SBR if first, it has a rearward accessory that provides surface area to be shouldered (pistol brace or similar accessory). A buffer tube on an AR platform will not be considered a shouldering device because it is needed for the cycle of operations. The old-school pistol buffer tubes with the foam cheek pad are also fine to have according to the ATF.
Secondly, the ATF will evaluate any firearms length of pull, accessories (including optics), weight, and manufacturer's marketing material to determine the intent of use (whether it is intended to be shouldered or not).
If the firearm is considered an SBR then the possessor will have 5 options within the 120 days.
Take off the accessory that shows intent to be shouldered.
Install a 16" barrel or 16" barreled upper on the firearm.
Destroy the firearm.
Surrender the firearm to the ATF.
Register the firearm as an NFA item via a Form 1.

Should you choose to register the firearm as an SBR, the ATF requires you to file a Form 1. The tax stamp will be waived within the 120 day period. There has been some false information about the photo and self incrimination. The ATF has said that the only photo they are requiring is one of the markings on the firearm to be adopted. Meaning, you won't have to mark the firearm with your own markings, you can adopt the serial number and other manufacturers markings. If you are denied for a clerical error or similar reason after the 120 days, you can submit another Form 1. In order to be in compliance with the ATF, you will need your submitted Form 1 paperwork saying that a form has been submitted. This is only if you want to use your firearm with a pistol brace attached while your form is being processed.
The ATF is considering a brace to be an accessory similar to a stock. Which means that braces can be purchased and possessed just like any other accessory. Constructive intent is something to be careful of. Should a brace be removed from the pistol then constructive intent will be considered if the brace can easily be installed onto the firearm. This is mostly important in the event of an ATF search or if the pistol is used in a crime.

[Dr.Lou]

That’s exactly what I heard when i attended an ATF seminar at SHOT. Not sure where the 88 day FUDD came from. Nonetheless, I won’t be filing no Form 1. Braces removed until the storm blows over.

[Sgt Raven]

https://youtu.be/lzFqLJGbdDE

[Flintlock Tom]

Declarations and explanations from the BATFE mean exactly nothing since they've shown that the information can be redacted or changed overnight.
The ATF does not make laws and this will be overturned.

[Dr.Lou]

One of better, more current updates:



https://youtu.be/UqyAd4t-E7E

[homelessdude]

I got an email this morning that said SAF just filed one. They usually do a pretty good job.

[Sgt Raven]

I will LMAO, if the new brace rulz, ends up stripping SBRs from the NFA...

[Dr.Lou]

Originally Posted by homelessdude

I got an email this morning that said SAF just filed one. They usually do a pretty good job.

Is this suit different than the one SAF filed a month ago?

[Sgt Raven]

Originally Posted by Dr.Lou

Is this suit different than the one SAF filed a month ago?

IIRC, there are 5 or 6 suits filed by different parties...

[Dr.Lou]

Originally Posted by Sgt Raven

IIRC, there are 5 or 6 suits filed by different parties...

I know there’s several, all attacking from different angles.

[Big Chudungus]

is that related to this "ATF alerted for multi-sales"

https://banned.video/watch?id=6401178485d91c3d2eba8b2a

[sdv]

I don't understand how it works, to be honest.

So, ATF created some document with "rule". If you are not compliant - you are felon.

But this document written (intentionally?) in a way, that regular gun owner can not read it to understand, is he/she compliant or not.

Moreover, ATF reserved the right to decide ("ATF will evaluate"), case-by-case, is your gun an SBR or not, based on non-disclosed schema, rules and factors (just some of them published) and decide on their own, based solely on their internal hidden rules and ideas, did you violated the regulation or not.

Sounds a bit like ..... home?!!!! I was born in USSR.

[Silence Dogood]

Mock v. Garland
Northern District of Texas
Judge: Reed Charles O'Connor
4:23-cv-00095

04-12-23 RESPONSE filed by Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives, Steven Dettelbach, Merrick Garland, United States Department of Justice re: 41 MOTION for Injunction Pending Appeal (Lowenstein, Jody) (Entered: 04/12/2023)

03-31-23 ORDER expediting briefing on Plaintiffs' 41 Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal. (Ordered by Judge Reed C. O'Connor on 3/31/2023) (chmb) (Entered: 03/31/2023)

03-30-23 Brief/Memorandum in Support filed by Firearms Policy Coalition Inc, Christopher Lewis, Maxim Defense Industries, LLC, William T Mock re 41 MOTION for Injunction Pending Appeal (Wisniewski, Cody) (Entered: 03/30/2023)

03-30-23 MOTION for Injunction Pending Appeal filed by Firearms Policy Coalition Inc, Christopher Lewis, Maxim Defense Industries, LLC, William T Mock (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)Attorney Cody J Wisniewski added to party Maxim Defense Industries, LLC(ptyla) (Wisniewski, Cody) (Entered: 03/30/2023)

03-30-23 NOTICE OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL to the Fifth Circuit by Firearms Policy Coalition Inc, Christopher Lewis, Maxim Defense Industries, LLC, William T Mock.

03-30-23 OPINION & ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS? MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR POSTPONEMENT OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE Having considered the parties' briefing and applicable law, the Court holds that Plaintiffs have not carried their burden to demonstrate their substantial likelihood of success on the merits of any of their claims and therefore DENIES 33 Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunctive relief or, in the alternative, for postponement of the Final Rules effective date. (Ordered by Judge Reed C. O'Connor on 3/30/2023) (tjc) (Entered: 03/30/2023)

03-17-23 REPLY filed by Firearms Policy Coalition Inc, Christopher Lewis, Maxim Defense Industries, LLC, William T Mock re: 33 MOTION for Injunction or, in the Alternative, for Postponement of the Effective Date of the Final Rule (Attachments: # 1 [Declaration(s) Supplemental Declaration of David Dahl) (Wisniewski, Cody) (Entered: 03/17/2023)

03-10-23 RESPONSE filed by Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives, Steven Dettelbach, Merrick Garland, United States Department of Justice re: 33 MOTION for Injunction or, in the Alternative, for Postponement of the Effective Date of the Final Rule (Lowenstein, Jody) (Entered: 03/10/2023)

FPC Case Page - Court Listener Page

[Silence Dogood]

Apparently there are seven cases or so. What are the others?

Mock v. Garland (last post) is the first to make significant progress when we received less than favorable word from Judge O?Connor (G.W. Bush appointee) Friday.

[snailbait]

7 cases:

Colon v. ATF
FRAC v. Garland
Watterson v. ATF
Britto v. ATF
Mock v. Garland
SAF v. ATF
Texas v. ATF

[Silence Dogood]

Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, Inc. v. Garland
District Court, D. North Dakota
Judge: Daniel L. Hovland
1:23-cv-00024

04-04-23 ORDER by Judge Daniel L. Hovland granting 74 Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer. Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Complaint due 30 days after the Court resolves Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction.

. . .

02-10-23 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by B&T USA, LLC, Richard Cicero, Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, Inc., NST Global, LLC., West Virginia, State of (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum In Support)(Obermeier, Stephen) Modified to reflect correct filer on 2/16/2023 (sc). Modified on 2/17/2023 to add West Virginia as a filer. (rh) (Entered: 02/10/2023)

. . .

Court Listener Page

[Silence Dogood]

Originally Posted by snailbait

7 cases:

Colon v. ATF
FRAC v. Garland
Watterson v. ATF
Britto v. ATF
Mock v. Garland
SAF (aka Rainier Arms LLC) v. ATF
Texas v. ATF

Thanks snailbait. I will add in the remaining five cases (and backfill Mock and FRAC) with links and updates unless someone else beats me to it.

[Silence Dogood]

Rainier Arms LLC v. Bureau of Alcohol Tabacco Firearms and Explosives

Northern District Texas
Judge: Jane J. Boyle
3:21-cv-00116

03-24-23 RESPONSE filed by Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives, Regina Lombardo, Jeffrey A Rosen, United States Department of Justice re: 51 MOTION for Injunction (Lowenstein, Jody) (Entered: 03/24/2023)

03-03-23 Brief/Memorandum in Support filed by William Green, Rainier Arms LLC, Second Amendment Foundation Inc, Samuel Walley re 51 MOTION for Injunction (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) 1, # 2 Exhibit(s) 2, # 3 Exhibit(s) 3, # 4 Exhibit(s) 4, # 5 Exhibit(s) 5) (Flores, Charles) (Entered: 03/03/2023)

03-03-23 MOTION for Injunction filed by William Green, Rainier Arms LLC, Second Amendment Foundation Inc, Samuel Walley (Flores, Charles) (Entered: 03/03/2023)

02-17-23 AMENDED COMPLAINT of the Second Amendment Foundation, Ranier Arms, and Individual Plaintiffs against All Defendants filed by Samuel Walley, Rainier Arms LLC, William Green, Second Amendment Foundation Inc. Unless exempted, attorneys who are not admitted to practice in the Northern District of Texas must seek admission promptly. Forms, instructions, and exemption information may be found at www.txnd.uscourts.gov, or by clicking here: Attorney Information - Bar Membership. If admission requirements are not satisfied within 21 days, the clerk will notify the presiding judge. (Flores, Charles) (Entered: 02/17/2023)

SAF Page - Court Listener Page

[Silence Dogood]

Colon v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

Middle District Florida
Judge: Mary S. Scriven
8:23-cv-00223

02-02-23 COMPLAINT against All Defendants (Filing fee $402 receipt number AFLMDC-20466291) filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Zermay, Zachary) (Entered: 02/01/2023)

Court Listener Page

[Silence Dogood]

https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2023/03...lizing-braces/

Good general summary of the seven cases.

[Scooooter7]

Originally Posted by sdv

I don't understand how it works, to be honest.

So, ATF created some document with "rule". If you are not compliant - you are felon.

But this document written (intentionally?) in a way, that regular gun owner can not read it to understand, is he/she compliant or not.

Moreover, ATF reserved the right to decide ("ATF will evaluate"), case-by-case, is your gun an SBR or not, based on non-disclosed schema, rules and factors (just some of them published) and decide on their own, based solely on their internal hidden rules and ideas, did you violated the regulation or not.

Sounds a bit like ..... home?!!!! I was born in USSR.

Welcome to the land of the free, as long as you have a very expensive legal team. (just ask Trump)

[Scooooter7]

The next to last paragraph sounds like a good conclusion to me...


In the past, advocates of heightened firearm regulation could respond by saying: “Yes, it is strange that SBRs are treated differently than rifles and pistols… but the solution is to treat all guns like NFA items, rifles and pistols included.” However reasonable this retort may sound, the truth is that the regulatory scheme it proposes might not pass constitutional muster in the post-Bruen era, since laws classifying guns based on barrel length seem to be mainly a product of the 20th century (not the Founding era). Because of this potential constitutional roadblock, the opinion that both of these perspectives share—that SBRs should probably be treated like other rifles—is more likely to lead to the conclusion that SBRs shouldn’t be regulated as NFA items at all.

[Silence Dogood]

ATF replied last week in Mock (see post 16).

[TruOil]

Mock v. Garland:
No. 23-10319
2
Per Curiam:

IT IS ORDERED that the appeal is EXPEDITED to the next
available Oral Argument Calendar.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Appellants’ Opposed Motion
For a Preliminary Injunction Pending Appeal is GRANTED as to the
Plaintiffs in this case. See Fed. R. App. P. 8; Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S.
418 (2009).

[Bhobbs]

Interesting that this only applies to the plaintiffs.

[Bhobbs]

So why is it that so many anti Trump judges issued nationwide injunctions but pro 2A injunctions are limited to the circuit, or even the plaintiffs?

[BlueOvalBandit]

Sort of tangentially related, Sachett v. EPA part II dropped, and the Sachett's remain undefeated at the SCOTUS with a second 9-0 win.

The tl:dr version is the EPA was using the clean water act and trying to promulgate their regulations into law by st stretching definitions (*cough* ATF *cough*) and they, rightfully so, got smacked down.

[Fyathyrio]

SAF v ATF, also TX, also enjoined, and also only for named plaintiffs. Basically says to wait for Mock v Garland results. I guess it's only a little bit unconstitutional and not really-really unconstitutional?!?

[Steve1968LS2]

The main case judge punted to June 2 to let us know who the injunction covers.. lol

[Disconscious]

https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fifth...-fpc-s-members

apparently the injunction granted in the 5th circuit covers 'all fpc members'.

Does this apply to me?

[OleCuss]

BTW, I'm not sure it has been pointed out on this thread but NAGR makes a good point about what happens when the ruling that a pistol brace being attached to a pistol constitutes an SBR takes effect.

Since there will suddenly be millions of people who will have SBRs. . . Yup, SBRs will suddenly be in common use and presumptively legal.

So the pistol brace rule going into effective really should definitively kill the ban on SBRs! And if SBRs are legal then the pistol brace rule is not a problem because if the pistol brace attached to the firearm constitutes an SBR and SBRs are now legal?

[Fyathyrio]

Originally Posted by Disconscious

https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fifth...-fpc-s-members

apparently the injunction granted in the 5th circuit covers 'all fpc members'.

Does this apply to me?

This YouTube lawyer here, based on his interpretation of his discussion with the FPC lawyers, feels that it applies to all FPC members nationwide.

E.T.A. FPC feels like it applies to all who join, too, based on their join-up page.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Biden misfire: Gun rights group urges House to block ATF rule banning pistol braces

The June 1 deadline for a new Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) rule banning pistol braces is looming, and gun rights groups are pressuring House Republican leadership to schedule a vote to block it, giving Democrats that represent pro-gun states a tough choice to make.

The new rule would make it a felony to own an unregistered, commonly used plastic stabilizing brace designed for use with pistols. Pistol braces were originally invented in 2012 to aid disabled veterans in shooting independently...

Earlier this year, Rep. Andrew Clyde, R-Ga., along with 188 Republican cosponsors, introduced a resolution disapproving of the rule under the U.S. code that dictates congressional oversight of agency rulemaking. The resolution was passed by the House Judiciary Committee, but has yet to be taken up by House Speaker Kevin McCarthy for a full floor vote...

The resolution to block the rule is exempt from the filibuster rule, and as a result would allow Senate Republicans to force a vote and place several vulnerable Democratic lawmakers representing pro-gun states - like Sen. Jon Tester in Montana, Sen. Joe Manchin in West Virginia and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema in Arizona - in a precarious political position...

[rational_behavior]

I got an email from FPC confirming that, as a member, my (non-existent) arm braced pistols are covered by the injunction. Presumably, such things are illegal in California anyways.

[rational_behavior]

Originally Posted by Fyathyrio

FPC feels like it applies to all who join, too, based on their join-up page.

That would be an epic troll if millions of pistol owners signed up. Good for the organization, too, which is presumably less toxic than NRA.

[rational_behavior]

Originally Posted by OleCuss

BTW, I'm not sure it has been pointed out on this thread but NAGR makes a good point about what happens when the ruling that a pistol brace being attached to a pistol constitutes an SBR takes effect.

Since there will suddenly be millions of people who will have SBRs. . . Yup, SBRs will suddenly be in common use and presumptively legal.

So the pistol brace rule going into effective really should definitively kill the ban on SBRs! And if SBRs are legal then the pistol brace rule is not a problem because if the pistol brace attached to the firearm constitutes an SBR and SBRs are now legal?

You are assuming logic and a fair play on the part of the antis. Not a good assumption.

[gobler]

If you're not a member of FPC yet, join up now. It's only $30/ month.

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk