New BATF ruling on stabilizing braces today

[KokomoDave]

Oh I like that After pic! I never got to shoot enough of these for my liking. Simple, effective and deadly. They sell these at Sam's or Costco now???

 

[printcraft]

Oh I like that After pic! I never got to shoot enough of these for my liking. Simple, effective and deadly. They sell these at Sam's or Costco now???

6 pack for $15.99

 

[actaeon277]

According to anti-gunners, EVERY gun store has them.

 

[bwframe]

 

[actaeon277]

Yes. Why are they pleading down gun 'enhancers'?

 

[actaeon277]

 

[bwframe]

 

[actaeon277]

senile I am


That's what I get for not closing that window

 

[BigRed]

atf. Take an oath to protect and defend the constitution of the States, spend a career shredding and raping it.

Scum of the scum.

It doesn't just need to be "reigned in". It needs to be abolished.

 

[femurphy77]

I sent in my documents on May 16th I believe it was and received notification today that it had been approved today, not a bad turnaround time considering the volume.

Now if I can just figure out why that black suburban keeps slowing down when they drive by my house all will be well with the world.

 

[DadSmith]

I sent in my documents on May 16th I believe it was and received notification today that it had been approved today, not a bad turnaround time considering the volume.

Now if I can just figure out why that black suburban keeps slowing down when they drive by my house all will be well with the world.

 

[JAL]

Breaking News:

NRA Motion to Intervene in the SAF lawsuit in the Northern District of Texas is DENIED and NRA members will not be granted coverage by the court's injunction!

Memorandum order and Opinion from the court (12 pages long:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.343209/gov.uscourts.txnd.343209.85.0.pdf

This will undoubtedly **** off many. However, NRA wanted to climb onto the SAF lawsuit as a Johnny-Come-Lately attempting to coattail on the injunction this court carried over from the Mock v Garland (FPC) lawsuit. The 5th Circuit heard oral arguments on Thursday (29th). It's now pending a decision from the 3-judge merits panel on a preliminary injunction (and not on the merits of the case proper). The decision denying NRA's motion to intervene is well reasoned. This District Court saw through the NRA's sole motive for intervention to coattail on the injunction, and that it had sat on its hands regarding this case (the SAF lawsuit) until then, noting it's not a named plaintiff anywhere. The first point made by the judge in the decision: NRA's motion to intervene was not timely. The rest does not matter regarding several aspects governing a right to intervene even though the judge was thorough enough to address them. The motion fails on that alone.

Once again, NRA shoots itself in the foot (pun intended) and undoubtedly has a good number of pissed off members. Those pissed off NRA didn't get to join the lawsuit and enjoy coverage by the current injunction need to take it up with NRA leadership and its incompetence and ineptitude. The SAF lawsuit court did what I had anticipated it would do. The 5th Circuit injunction was for named plaintiffs, their org members, and their company customers (plus family members living with them). The Texas District Court injunctions are predicated on that one and mirror it. The judge in this case cited that and it was reflected in the decision.

Awaiting decision from 5th Circuit whether Mock v. Garland preliminary injunction should be continued. That could be next week, the following week, or the end of July. It's in the hands of the 3-judge panel to write a majority and (undoubtedly) a minority opinion as I expect a 2-1 split. Depends on how busy the judges are with other stuff that might have higher priority. Flip a coin on which way it will fall.

 

[BigRed]

View attachment 283925

Now that the "pride parades" are over, these clowns are back to what they do....

 

[JAL]

Breaking News:

NRA Motion to Intervene in the SAF lawsuit in the Northern District of Texas is DENIED and NRA members will not be granted coverage by the court's injunction!

. . .
The first point made by the judge in the decision: NRA's motion to intervene was not timely.
. . .

Additional Observations:
In reading the judge's opinion with greater depth, she also correctly reasoned her decision regarding "judicial discretion" that could allow granting the motion in spite of not meeting other factors (most notably timeliness in this one), but that doing so for the NRA would encourage precisely what NRA was attempting to do . . . case shopping by individuals and organizations to pile onto one that had been granted a preliminary injunction in order to expand the injunction to cover them. Granting the NRA's motion would open the door to that kind of behavior by rewarding it (you get behaviors you reward). It would inundate courts with an avalanche of intervenor motions whenever it issues an (preliminary) injunction, which would be misuse and abuse of intervenor motions versus their intended purpose, and have a chilling effect on courts issuing preliminary injunctions to avoid Intervenor Motion dogpiles. The judge did what she needed to do to send a message about Intervenor Motions and their use. Had she granted the NRA's motion I can guarantee her court would have seen numerous more piling on from individuals and organizations, clogging her docket to consider them all, and issue a decision on each one.

 

[nonobaddog]

Additional Observations:
In reading the judge's opinion with greater depth, she also correctly reasoned her decision regarding "judicial discretion" that could allow granting the motion in spite of not meeting other factors (most notably timeliness in this one), but that doing so for the NRA would encourage precisely what NRA was attempting to do . . . case shopping by individuals and organizations to pile onto one that had been granted an injunction in order to expand the injunction to cover them. Granting the NRA's motion would opening the door to that kind of behavior by rewarding it (you get behaviors you reward). It would inundate courts with an avalanche of intervenor motions whenever it issues an injunction, which would be misuse and abuse of intervenor motions versus their intended purpose, and have a chilling effect on courts issuing preliminary injunctions to avoid Intervenor Motion dogpiles. The judge did what she needed to do to send a message about Intervenor Motions and their use. Had she granted the NRA's motion I can guarantee her court would have seen numerous more piling on from individuals and organizations, clogging her docket to consider them all, and issue a decision on each one.

Thank you for that explanation. Your posts add a ton of value to this thread!

 

[Ingomike]

Additional Observations:
In reading the judge's opinion with greater depth, she also correctly reasoned her decision regarding "judicial discretion" that could allow granting the motion in spite of not meeting other factors (most notably timeliness in this one), but that doing so for the NRA would encourage precisely what NRA was attempting to do . . . case shopping by individuals and organizations to pile onto one that had been granted a preliminary injunction in order to expand the injunction to cover them. Granting the NRA's motion would open the door to that kind of behavior by rewarding it (you get behaviors you reward). It would inundate courts with an avalanche of intervenor motions whenever it issues an (preliminary) injunction, which would be misuse and abuse of intervenor motions versus their intended purpose, and have a chilling effect on courts issuing preliminary injunctions to avoid Intervenor Motion dogpiles. The judge did what she needed to do to send a message about Intervenor Motions and their use. Had she granted the NRA's motion I can guarantee her court would have seen numerous more piling on from individuals and organizations, clogging her docket to consider them all, and issue a decision on each one.

What I do not get is why all citizens do not get the protection of the injunction?

I recall an EO concerning immigration, that injunction was not just for the petitioner or even the circuit the court was in, it was nationwide. Why do we always get second class treatment?

 

[BigRed]

What I do not get is why all citizens do not get the protection of the injunction?

I recall an EO concerning immigration, that injunction was not just for the petitioner or even the circuit the court was in, it was nationwide. Why do we always get second class treatmen?

When in the course of human events.....

 

[Mgderf]

I was pleased when the S.A.F. was granted the injunction.

What I do not get is why all citizens do not get the protection of the injunction?

I recall an EO concerning immigration, that injunction was not just for the petitioner or even the circuit the court was in, it was nationwide. Why do we always get second class treatment?

I think a lot of it has to do with judicial discretion.
Some judges, in some courts, seem to have a lot of leeway in deciding things like who gets covered by an injunction.
Just so happens there are a LOT of sitting judges who are anti-2A.

 

[Ingomike]

I was pleased when the S.A.F. was granted the injunction.

I think a lot of it has to do with judicial discretion.
Some judges, in some courts, seem to have a lot of leeway in deciding things like who gets covered by an injunction.
Just so happens there are a LOT of sitting judges who are anti-2A.

I was pleased the injunction was granted, but not the scope of it.

My belief is judges that would grant an injunction favorable to more conservative issues are far more likely to follow to the letter of their discretion whereas leftists always think the end justifies the means…

 

[Mgderf]

When word came out that S.A.F. had been granted the injunction for the entity and it's members, I thought "cool, that would cover me, if I needed it".
I knew I had purchased a life membership in the S.A.F. and had a certificate on the wall.
I looked at it after hearing about the injunction and realized that my life membership in S.A.F. officially started on January 6th 2022.
Lol