Suits against ATF brace rule

[AlmostHeaven]

Originally Posted by rational_behavior

Is that normal for a ruby red state like Missouri?

What would their legal exposure even be?

Missouri even has a Second Amendment sanctuary law in place that forbids state and local law enforcement agencies from enforcing federal gun laws that are inconsistent with Missouri state law.

This gun store is either paranoid about the ATF paying them a visit, or the management is the "law and order" type that supports existing gun laws.

[Scooooter7]

Originally Posted by AlmostHeaven

Missouri even has a Second Amendment sanctuary law in place that forbids state and local law enforcement agencies from enforcing federal gun laws that are inconsistent with Missouri state law.

This gun store is either paranoid about the ATF paying them a visit, or the management is the "law and order" type that supports existing gun laws.

http://www.targettimedefense.com/range


Actually in Blue Springs, Mo. Not Independence I earlier mentioned.

I am wondering if any other Ranges specifically spell out the no braced pistol allowed without proof of tax stamp approval. Not mentioned on the website, other than standard no Illegal stuff.

[Quiet]

Originally Posted by rational_behavior

Is that normal for a ruby red state like Missouri?

What would their legal exposure even be?

Originally Posted by AlmostHeaven

Missouri even has a Second Amendment sanctuary law in place that forbids state and local law enforcement agencies from enforcing federal gun laws that are inconsistent with Missouri state law.

This gun store is either paranoid about the ATF paying them a visit, or the management is the "law and order" type that supports existing gun laws.

MO SBR laws requires the SBR to be legal under Federal laws/regulations, in order to be legal in MO. [MRS 571.020]

Therefore... Per MO state laws, if the Feds consider it an illegal SBR, then MO will also consider it an illegal SBR.



Missouri Revised Statue 571.020
Possession--manufacture--transport--repair--sale of certain weapons a crime--exceptions--penalties.
1. A person commits an offense if such person knowingly possesses, manufactures, transports, repairs, or sells:
(6) Any of the following in violation of federal law:
(a) A machine gun;
(b) A short-barreled rifle or shotgun;
(c) A firearm silencer; or
(d) A switchblade knife.
3. An offense pursuant to subdivision (1), (2), (3) or (6) of subsection 1 of this section is a class D felony; a crime pursuant to subdivision (4) or (5) of subsection 1 of this section is a class A misdemeanor.

[rational_behavior]

Originally Posted by AlmostHeaven

This gun store is either paranoid about the ATF paying them a visit, or the management is the "law and order" type that supports existing gun laws.

Granted, here is always going to be a 5th column in any community. It's a fact of human nature. That said, there does seem to be a major pole of attraction in the firearms community that is particularly brainless in this regard. You said it: the "law and order type", so called. They certainly don't mean any kind of Higher Law.

One can imagine a "thin blue line" that has drilled a hole in their skulls, by means of which their thin gray matter has long since dribbled out.

My 50 cents (Bidenflation).

[rational_behavior]

Originally Posted by Quiet

MO SBR laws requires the SBR to be legal under Federal laws/regulations, in order to be legal in MO. [MRS 571.020]

Therefore... Per MO state laws, if the Feds consider it an illegal SBR, then MO will also consider it an illegal SBR.



Missouri Revised Statue 571.020
Possession--manufacture--transport--repair--sale of certain weapons a crime--exceptions--penalties.
1. A person commits an offense if such person knowingly possesses, manufactures, transports, repairs, or sells:
(6) Any of the following in violation of federal law:
(a) A machine gun;
(b) A short-barreled rifle or shotgun;
(c) A firearm silencer; or
(d) A switchblade knife.
3. An offense pursuant to subdivision (1), (2), (3) or (6) of subsection 1 of this section is a class D felony; a crime pursuant to subdivision (4) or (5) of subsection 1 of this section is a class A misdemeanor.

Even so, it behooves private businesses to *obey* rather than *enforce* the law, am I wrong? IANAL.

[Fyathyrio]

Once again, NRA is leading the pack from the rear, fighting for your rights by horning in on other's work after the fact. Curious why there isn't an NRA v ATF case. I hope it works, for the member's sake, without damaging the successful efforts of SAF.

[Silence Dogood]

There is an eighth case now. NAGR is dipping its toe in the water.

https://dockets.justia.com/docket/te...cv00578/377759
https://youtu.be/p409LX6BgOI

[POLICESTATE]

Joined FPC and GOA over this. NRA is dead to me.

[AlmostHeaven]

Originally Posted by POLICESTATE

Joined FPC and GOA over this. NRA is dead to me.

Welcome to the club. The entire gun rights movement in America at this point is defended by organizations such as Firearms Policy Coalition.

[Silence Dogood]

Recording of Mock v. Garland oral arguments (from this morning) available here:
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArg..._6-29-2023.mp3

[michigander]

Thoughts on how this hearing went? I listened, but I’m used to 2A arguments and I’m not sure of the line of questioning or arguments made in this case.

[Silence Dogood]

I thought it generally went well (for 2A) but we?ll see what the judges think.

I liked Mock counsel?s point at 8:50 regarding ?dangerous and unusual? which culminated in his statement at approx. 12:30 regarding a broader case against NFA to which he says ?I?ll let that case happen when it happens.? I think it is worth noting that the judges interrupted his oratory such that he was only discussed ?dangerous? and not also ?unusual?.

I found ATF counsel?s arguments uninspired and enjoyed the judge?s warning to him at 39:59 this his argument was ?problematic?.

I am concerned that ATF counsel cites Hollis at 58:20 saying that 3 million owners is less than ?common ownership? instead of referencing the 200k number used in Caetano for common use, especially since Caetano was cited and discussed in Hollis oral arguments and since the 5th circuit is an inferior court to SCOTUS.

I haven?t read Hollis yet. Does anyone familiar with Hollis have input?

[AlmostHeaven]

In my opinion, Mock v. Garland was the only one of the three Second Amendment litigation oral arguments today that went well for us.

The Seventh Circuit Illinois assault weapons and high-capacity magazine ban case was a travesty, with two of the three judges displaying open hostility to the counsel representing gun rights organizations.

The Ninth Circuit California open carry ban case had a favorable panel, but the judges seemed inclined to remand the case back down to the anti-gun district court.

[Sgt Raven]

Originally Posted by AlmostHeaven

In my opinion, Mock v. Garland was the only one of the three Second Amendment litigation oral arguments today that went well for us.

The Seventh Circuit Illinois assault weapons and high-capacity magazine ban case was a travesty, with two of the three judges displaying open hostility to the counsel representing gun rights organizations.

The Ninth Circuit California open carry ban case had a favorable panel, but the judges seemed inclined to remand the case back down to the anti-gun district court.

Lets hope Easterbrook and Wood let their egos write their rulings. Both of them think they should be on SCOTUS and hold a grudge because they aren't...

[Sputnik]

It looks like FPC got a win in Mock v Garland.
https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fifth...likely-illegal
Now it goes back to the district to let them figure out the scope of the relief.

[Reno-Kid]

Nice!

“Said in its simplest terms, the Fifth Circuit just indicated that the Plaintiffs–Firearms Policy Coalition, Maxim Defense, and FPC’s individual members–are likely to defeat ATF’s pistol brace rule when the merits of this case are finally heard,” said Cody J. Wisniewski, FPCAF’s General Counsel and FPC’s counsel in this case.

[Fyathyrio]

They decided this on the administrative question; they did not officially look at the 2A implications, but the concurrence did say he felt that the braces are legal under 2A. 5th CA said this meets the first prong, that the plaintiffs are likely to win. They sent it back to the district court, who had originally said plaintiffs failed to meet the first prong of the 4 prong injunction test, and gave them 60 days to do the rest of the injunction analysis and rule accordingly. Theoretically the district could shoot it down on one of the other prongs.