r/gunpolitics • u/Mr_Rapscallion66 • Jun 13 '24

Mock v. Garland ATF Pistol Brace Rule Lawsuit, the District Court has issued its decision and VACATED THE RULE! Court Cases

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

509 Upvotes

98% Upvoted

342

u/ProgramWars Jun 13 '24

From FPC twitter:

The layman's summary:

ATF was overreaching sneaky pricks.

ATF broke the law by being overreaching sneaky pricks.

Therefore, the right thing for the Court to do was throw the Rule in the trash.

The Court threw the Pistol Brace Rule in the trash.

Fyi, the atf can (and will) appeal and it may go to the scotus.

65

u/SOUTHPAWMIKE Jun 13 '24

ATF broke the law by being overreaching sneaky pricks.

...But will not face any consequences for breaking said law. Please tell me I'm wrong?

32

u/cakes3436 Jun 13 '24

Well, a bunch of liberalgunowners will vote for politicians who want to put even worse people (like Chipman) in charge of it so they can overreach more?

14

u/Blindfromthesol Jun 14 '24

Liberalgunowners will usually respond to this with a line like, “I’m not a single issue voter.” They’d gladly turn in their guns if the guberment asked them nicely.

170

u/Public_Beach_Nudity Jun 13 '24

They can appeal to my nutsack for all I care. I’m gonna go scuba diving for… reasons. Lol

32

u/OneExpensiveAbortion Jun 13 '24

God damn boating accidents!

15

u/GoPlayAGame Jun 13 '24

When it's time to hide them, it's time to use them. No boating accidents over here, just a lot of damn firearms that will never be taken from me.

2

u/Glass_Protection_254 Jun 14 '24

I love this perspective and pray your neighbors have your back shouldn't anything ever occur.

11

u/bill_bull Jun 13 '24

Boating accidents are for soy boys.

35

u/u537n2m35 Jun 13 '24

Great.

Now reverse uno and file suit for damages against EVERY.SINGLE.PERSON. who used their gov’t title or office to support this tyranny. Sentencing to be carried out PERSONALLY, and not defaulting to taxpayer gov’t funds.

32

u/codifier Jun 13 '24

It was a very milquetoast decision by the court.

They completely evaded any constitutional challenge, which, while not too surprising as the rule is to not address constitutionality issues if there are other non-constitutional findings, but it still feels like a dodge.

Further it read much like the court only found in favor of the plaintiffs because the 5th circuit said so and the fact is the 5th circuit had kicked it back saying g as such. The BATFE broke some rules and was too vague, but the court left the door wide open for them to have another stab at the apple instead of addressing what the agency was trying to achieve.

Given some of the opinions that made it clear the court is keen to the government shenanigans this one very much had the tone of a kid writing a sorry-not-sorry letter.

11

u/emperor000 Jun 13 '24

Most SCOTUS decisions, 2A cases, at least, avoid any Constitutional challenges anyway.

6

u/pattyboy77 Jun 13 '24

These are the breakdowns I need.

9

u/Neat_Low_1818 Jun 13 '24

And SCOTUS is the majority Conservative and Trump appointments . They'll rule in our favor. Pretty safe bet here

5

u/WWWFlow Jun 13 '24

It's really kind of dumb to think that. It was under trump that started this BS with the bump stock ban.

1

u/NotThatGuyAnother1 Jun 17 '24

And how did SCOTUS rule on the bump stock ban?

8

u/[deleted] Jun 13 '24

[deleted]

11

u/emperor000 Jun 13 '24

He was not "pretty anti"... he just wasn't "super pro"...

Whatever he is is drastically better than Biden or any other Democrat.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 13 '24

[deleted]

1

u/emperor000 Jul 10 '24

I think you've been propagandized. That wasn't the point of what he said. It wasn't about confiscating guns and it wasn't even about red flag laws. The Democrats were pushing red flag laws that involved no due process at all. Pence pushed back with a different approach that gave law enforcement more options to avoid cases where they claim or try to claim that they couldn't do anything about a person before they do something horrible. And Trump went on board with that, but pointed out that you would take the guns first, which is just obviously true. That is how it already works now.

If you were charged with some crime having to do with posing a threat to society then you're going to get arrested first anyway, have some level of rights suspended, possibly even your freedom and sitting in jail awaiting trial, and "due process later." That is how it already works.

And that doesn't mean there's nothing to be concerned about related to the whole discussion. What Pence/Republicans were proposing and Trump thought through could still be concerning, for sure. But the "take the guns first, due process later" thing just gets used for propaganda.

How many of these people throwing that quote out there are going to vote for the Democrats who were pushing the red flag laws to begin with that involved no due process whatsoever at any time?

2

u/AwkwardData6002 Jun 16 '24

Being a Trump appointee doesn't make them pro-2a, beyond the fact that they were all Federalist Society picks, which pretty much does make them Pro-2a.

-1

u/Neat_Low_1818 Jun 13 '24

😢 that's too bad. I thought Trump would be for the cause.

10

u/emperor000 Jun 13 '24

Don't listen to that person. Trump was at worst ambivalent about gun rights. He was right on par with most Republicans and certainly better than most Democrats.

There are only, like maybe 6, at most, Republicans who are actually pro gun rights and half of those get shit on by most gun owners for being "crazy".

3

u/theblackmetal09 Jun 13 '24

He's for the cause when it fits his case. He said himself Take the Guns first. Then signed an executive order banning bumpstocks. Then when confronted on a CNN townhall he blamed it on the advice of NRA. Then he goes and has a firearm purchased at PSA to cater to us. I'd rather he give a heartfelt apology, but man idk. I just pray for a Trump with a backbone.

4

u/Neat_Low_1818 Jun 13 '24

Yeah that doesn't sound too convincing from him. The man was a lifelong Democrat before entering public office so old habits die hard I guess. NRA isn't a great lobbyist to be in his ear either. They're a bunch of broke fudds.

1

u/Tactical_Epunk Jun 13 '24

Lol, why?

0

u/Neat_Low_1818 Jun 13 '24

Because he's a Republican? Wouldn't that by default make him pro 2A?

6

u/wyvernx02 Jun 13 '24

Trump is a disgruntled NYC Democrat that ran as a Republican because Obama hurt his feelings.

3

u/WWWFlow Jun 13 '24

Not going to lie. This mindset, by millions of people, is EXACTLLY why we have so many issues in this country. People pick a side because it's against the other side and assume that whoever the person is is supposed to be one way or another because of their political affiliation. No one takes pro's and Con's from all those who are running and decide to vote on who best aligns with their personal beliefs. Thats how it should be done. As a small rant. Lol my bad.

1

u/Neat_Low_1818 Jun 14 '24

I have no intention of voting conservative outside of local politics. I didn't vote yes on everything. There are other issues that affect me more than my gun rights.

0

u/Tactical_Epunk Jun 13 '24

Lol, do you think Reagan was Pro 2A?

-3

u/Neat_Low_1818 Jun 13 '24

No that dude was a bum. I don't even know why Republicans ride his D so hard.

1

u/Tactical_Epunk Jun 13 '24

But according to you, being Republican means your pro 2A.

1

u/Neat_Low_1818 Jun 13 '24 edited Jun 13 '24

Generally yes. It's what they tell you when they campaign.

Perhaps it's a more philosophical question. Can you trust anyone running for office and those NRA grades? They give Dems F grades and nearly every Republican an A grade. Is it to make us vote along the party line? 🤔

→ More replies

3

u/emperor000 Jun 13 '24

But it will be a weak, equivocating ruling like all the others.

3

u/in50mn14c Jun 13 '24

It won't go to SCOTUS - because that could result in a ruling that strips the ATF of more power.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '24

[deleted]

1

u/ProgramWars Jun 16 '24

...?

This is a district court ruling

117

u/AlphaTangoFoxtrt Totally not ATF Jun 13 '24

Good.

ELI5: ATF new pistol brace rule is tossed. Braces remain legal.

10

u/Rookie_of_the_Year2 Jun 13 '24

Is this local or on a federal level?

30

u/AlphaTangoFoxtrt Totally not ATF Jun 13 '24

Federal, if your state has a law about banning braces, this ruling does not apply.

1

u/Rookie_of_the_Year2 Jun 18 '24

Man that sucks😔😔😔

1

u/AlphaTangoFoxtrt Totally not ATF Jun 18 '24

Yes, but actually no. This ruling was a pretty big blow to the ATFs "Rule Making" powers and will impact FRT, Super Safety, Pistol Braces, and others.

It was the right challenge, and it sets up for the fall of Chevron Deference expected in Raimondo v. Loper Bright.

52

u/Fun-Passage-7613 Jun 13 '24

Jerry Micluk’s finger is a machine gun. So does that mean his finger is an NFA item requiring a background check and a $200 stamp? That’s how stupid the NFA is…

14

u/ExpensiveFill2178 Jun 13 '24

I wish Jerry could still register anything as a machine gun. Damn Hughes…

13

u/derfcrampton Jun 13 '24

Thanks Ronald Reagan.

5

u/ExpensiveFill2178 Jun 13 '24

Well, the GOPA did have some seriously important provisions within it, but Hughes did kind of ruin the fun.

9

u/chauntikleer Jun 13 '24

Don't give them any ideas!

1

u/Neat_Low_1818 Jun 13 '24

You can form 1 a potato 🥔 now

2

u/MrTorben Jun 13 '24

Form1 a rubber tree plantation

65

u/new_Boot_goof1n Jun 13 '24

Idk how to read, this good for my ar pistol yes?

31

u/codifier Jun 13 '24

Yes with some caveats.

  • this can and will be appealed (because government has unlimited money to do so), but will go back to 5th circuit who already sent the lower court to summer school to get the answer right alrewady so not much sympathy there. they could then take the appeal to SCOTUS who will also likely not side with the government.

  • the ruling wasn't on constitutional grounds. It amounts to the ATF just getting told they didn't follow the rules in making their bullshit up, they can and will get another try to infringe again.

So while you should be fine the fact is this ain't over by a long shot, the empire will strike back so in the meantime maybe staying off social media with pictures of braced guns is a good idea, as it always is.

9

u/merc08 Jun 13 '24

the ruling wasn't on constitutional grounds. It amounts to the ATF just getting told they didn't follow the rules in making their bullshit up, they can and will get another try to infringe again.

Even if the ruling was on Constitutional grounds, the ATF would still have tried again. So I'll take procedural wins where we can get them. Especially since the anti-gun side loves to flaunt procedural wins when they claim lack of standing and get a case tossed

2

u/burf151 Jun 13 '24

Yes, "Your rule that says braced pistols are SBRs oversteps your authority" is not the same as "pistols with braces are not SBRs". "Does your specific pistol with your specific brace an meet the definition of an SBR in the statute?" is the only question that matters. A jury will answer that question while being persuaded by two (possibly really good) attorneys. One sides attorney will be expensive and the other sides will have unlimited resources.

With the evidence out there on social media, I sure as heck wouldn't want to try to convince a jury of non gun people of the subtle difference between shouldering a brace and a stock. Now, probably the ATF doesn't want to either. A loss on that one may set precedent for cases that follow. But I'm not banking on that. Tread carefully.

1

u/ManyThingsLittleTime Jun 13 '24

Exactly, a rule being kicked out for being vague isn't the same thing as saying the matter won't ever see court again.

100

u/Mr_Rapscallion66 Jun 13 '24

https://www.hookedonphonics.com/

39

u/new_Boot_goof1n Jun 13 '24

Awe hell yeah I’m going to mag dump my ar10 pistol into trash just for the ATF today!

14

u/Thoraxe474 Jun 13 '24

Maybe he needs Muzzy too

3

u/curruptedmartyr Jun 13 '24

That name gave me fucking wiplash.

2

u/theblackmetal09 Jun 13 '24

Awe man, I grew up on those books as a kid. Funny think is that my mom bought them because my mom thought I had a little hard time reading, but actually I just hate writing book reports, lol!

5

u/MurkyChildhood2571 Jun 13 '24

You get to legaly have a pistol brace on a pistol with no tax stamp

23

u/AD3PDX Jun 13 '24

Yesterday I organized my gun safe, replaced batteries in optics, etc.

When I finished I put the braces back on to all of my braced firearms and put my FPC @ GOA stickers on my safe door.

Lets give credit where credit is due.

I will humbly accept your thanks for working my mojo. I’m available for rain dances and voodoo curses upon request.

14

u/emperor000 Jun 13 '24

The question is, why were the braces off the firearms in the first place?

9

u/_That_One_Guy_ Jun 13 '24

Well, some people I know may have potentially possibly immediately swapped all their braces for stocks because the punishment wasn't any different. Now that the rule is vacated they might go back to braces.

And that's not a sneaky way of saying I did this. I went ahead and got free tax stamps for the ones I wanted to SBR in the first place but didn't want to spend the money on with the expectation that the rule would be shot down and I'd end up ahead.

3

u/EternalMage321 Jun 14 '24

I went ahead and got free tax stamps for the ones I wanted to SBR in the first place but didn't want to spend the money on

Same. Thanks for the free tax stamps ATF.

1

u/emperor000 Jul 10 '24

True. But I was just giving that person a hard time. I wouldn't blame somebody for taking their brace off.

21

u/ATL_we_ready Jun 13 '24

That YouTube guy with breaking update videos every 24 hours on this topic can finally put out a real update.

15

u/Mr_Rapscallion66 Jun 13 '24

You mean the Lard Scholar?

5

u/ATL_we_ready Jun 13 '24

Bingo

10

u/SaintEyegor Jun 13 '24

Am really sick of his click-baity titles and gave up watching any of them.

5

u/Ok-House-6848 Jun 13 '24

Agree 100%. I started watching him because he seemed very lawyer like and I wanted to give him a chance. Now I throw up in my mouth when I see him show up on my feed.

58

u/Corked1 Jun 13 '24

Can't wait for the "Radical MAGA judge defies the law in favor of murdering children" headlines.

16

u/Original_Krom Jun 13 '24

Might as well just vacate the ATF at this point ;)

14

u/17_ScarS Jun 13 '24

Looks like pistol braces are back on the menu boys

8

u/justanothertrashpost Jun 13 '24

Nice, however I wish they would have decided that braces make a pistol a SBR therefore SBRs are common and can’t be regulated at all.

7

u/Salsalito_Turkey Jun 13 '24

The immediate result is nice, but this opinion is pretty lame from the court. They only vacated the final rule because the ATF strayed so far from the proposed rule. If the ATF had been more forthcoming in the proposed rule with their intention to implement a de facto ban on all braced firearms, then this decision would have gone the other way.

8

u/porschephille Jun 13 '24

They would have just argued a different point. SCOTUS has said multiple times that they would rather things be solved NOT based on constitutionality. So this was the most expedient way to get a judgement in our favor.

4

u/thwkman Jun 13 '24

“Not based on constitutionality “ 😳🤨isn’t that their job?

13

u/porschephille Jun 13 '24

The lower courts are supposed to avoid rulings on constitutional findings if there are others in the mix. I don’t agree, and feel that the constitution is clear on the second amendment, but it’s the way things are.

The courts are there, in this case, to make sure that the government is following its own laws.

8

u/Ig14rolla Jun 13 '24

I love FPC and GOA

7

u/merc08 Jun 13 '24

Does this apply nationally or only in northern Texas?

34

u/SouthernChike Jun 13 '24

The rule has been vacated, so that means nationally. 

12

u/sephstorm Jun 13 '24

So to confirm, this issue is dead right? It doesnt go to a lower court or anything, ATF has to hold another comment period and re-write the rule if they want to re-implement it?

18

u/lilrow420 Jun 13 '24

They can appeal it up the chain, and likely will. But for now, it is no longer an injunction, the ATF were slapped, but rather softly. Their needs to be consequences for this tyranny.

3

u/Neat_Low_1818 Jun 13 '24

Okay this was the answer I was looking for. Is it back to the way it was before the rule?

5

u/Mr_E_Monkey Jun 13 '24

Yes. The rule has been vacated.

vacate to cancel or rescind, make void or of no effect.

:)

And I know I'm being a little silly, but by golly, I love the way the phrase unlawful agency action rolls off the tongue, especially when applied to the ATF.

2

u/Neat_Low_1818 Jun 13 '24

Sound good

1

u/Mr_E_Monkey Jun 13 '24

And the way I understand it (could be wrong, but I think I'm right ;p ), while u/lilrow420 is right that ATF can (and probably will) appeal, since there's no injunction, and the rule has been vacated, there's no way for the rule to go into effect during the process. Basically, if they really want to go after braces, they have to start all over again, and deal with the legal battles that will undoubtedly follow.

As much as I know most of us would like for the court to squash this because it violates the 2nd amendment, the court did okay on this one.

7

u/lilrow420 Jun 13 '24

Correct. No injunction, it's just legal.

12

u/Remarkable-Opening69 Jun 13 '24

Can buy scorpion now?

19

u/mecks0 Jun 13 '24

Lol smacked down during their Pride Month.

5

u/nsgiad Jun 13 '24

Ya know us queers own guns too, right?

3

u/Neat_Low_1818 Jun 13 '24

What does this mean? Are pistol braces back now?

2

u/HawtDoge Jun 13 '24 edited Jun 13 '24

Wait wtf… I had no idea they were gone? So if I hypothetically had a brace on my pistol, I was breaking the law up until today?

2

u/battlgnome Jun 13 '24

There was a national injunction so no. Before the injunction took place for a short time, yeah, probably. But we all know you took your brace off...

3

u/HawtDoge Jun 13 '24

Ah okay, thanks! That explains why I inexplicably started feeling like I was a POS who deserved 10 years in federal prison… strange how laws line up 1:1 with universal morality.

2

u/SovietRobot Jun 13 '24

Haven’t gone through the details myself. If this is Texas District, anyone know how it impacts the rest of the country?

2

u/Mr_Rapscallion66 Jun 13 '24

It applies nationally

2

u/det8vele Jun 13 '24

Halle-fucking-lujah

2

u/poopbutt42069yeehaw Jun 14 '24

So can I put my buffer tube back on my ak pistol?

2

u/[deleted] Jun 13 '24

What about trumps bumpstock ban? What’s the status on that?

27

u/DigitalLorenz Jun 13 '24

Cargill v Garland was argued earlier this term. The final opinion is expected sometime in the next few days, as we are nearing the final days of this session.

The outcome is not looking bright, as during oral arguments it seemed like the majority of the justices agreed that the accessory turn the gun into a machine gun. Although post argument review of technical facts might change this.

14

u/[deleted] Jun 13 '24

[deleted]

20

u/DigitalLorenz Jun 13 '24

Cargill v Garland was argued earlier this term. The final opinion is expected sometime in the next few days, as we are nearing the final days of this session.

2

u/proletariatrising Jun 13 '24

It was already granted cert

1

u/Supasnail Jun 13 '24

ELI5 and TLDR for those retarded/lazy/working etc

1

u/genericdumbbutt Jun 13 '24

We're in the DPS phase boys

1

u/[deleted] Jun 13 '24

[deleted]

1

u/somososos Jun 14 '24

Can someone answer this for me, I am new to guns:

I want a stribog sp9a1. I talked to the folks at the range I go to a few weeks ago and they said I can shoot it but cant shoulder it as it is a "grey area"

Does this mean it is no longer a grey area and is perfectly fine?

0

u/Halfpipe_1 Jun 13 '24

Anyone know what this means for approved free form 1s?

3

u/MilesFortis Jun 14 '24

Approved forms will still be approved.

When it's got a stock on, it's a SBR. Without a stock and/or with a brace on, it reverts back to a pistol - as a SBR is defined by its configuration - and can go interstate w/o needing a .20.

2

u/MyWorkAccountz Jun 14 '24

So as long as you don't have a stock on it, you can treat it as a pistol...no paperwork needed to go back and forth?

2

u/MilesFortis Jun 14 '24

To put it simply; As long as you do not have a stock on it (and basically do not take it along with you) the gun is in the configuration of a pistol. No standard pistol needs any .fed paperwork for a person to simply transport it interstate.

ATF lost a case at SCOTUS over what is or isn't a SBR (U.S. v. Thompson Center, 504 U.S. 505) back in 1992

13

u/OperationSecured Jun 13 '24

Y’all bent the knee. Unreal.

5

u/_TurkeyFucker_ Jun 14 '24

I mean... If you're all about not "bending the knee," then the pistol brace ban should have meant literally nothing to you, since you wouldn't be messing around with braces to begin with, right?

3

u/Halfpipe_1 Jun 14 '24

OperationSecured already drilled the 3rd hole in all of his because he’s a gigachad.

2

u/OperationSecured Jun 14 '24 edited Jun 14 '24

I’m just busting balls.

BUT!

There’s a big difference between easily avoiding felonies / legally CCW’ing carbines in vehicles… and accepting the bullshit deal the ATF offered for their unconstitutional work around to forcing legislation despite not being Congress.

Just light hearted ribbing though.

4

u/Halfpipe_1 Jun 13 '24

I have other NFA items, already on “the list” and would have SBRd anyway. I do not see how saving $200 is “bending the knee”.

1

u/Original_Butterfly_4 Jun 14 '24

The guys posting that garbage have massive collections consisting of a PSA rifle with red anodized accessories and Hi-Point pistol with Hello Kitty stickers on it, hidden under their mom's bed in the trailer park. They have no net worth and nothing to lose, so they talk big on the internet.

1

u/MyWorkAccountz Jun 14 '24

I was watching "Washington Gun Law" and he said those who applied for and received an approved Form 1 it was "null and void", but also stated "you got a free tax stamp". So I'm not sure how this applies. Not sure if this means if you want to just revert back to a pistol brace, the form 1 doesn't apply, but if you choose to keep a stock on it, you can keep it as an SBR?

2

u/Original_Butterfly_4 Jun 14 '24

There will be internet law degree experts "debating" this point for months.

0

u/Official_Pine_Hills Jun 14 '24

The funniest part was that not only were there dudes who were obeying this "rule", but also some despicably cowardly gals that registered theirs for a "free" SBR.

Get fucked gATF.

-16

u/DaleGribble2024 Jun 13 '24

Until this gets decided by the Supreme Court, this doesn’t really mean anything IMO

20

u/steelhelix Jun 13 '24

Vacated means the rule is dead and the only way it can be re-implemented is on ATF winning their appeal. Take it as if the injunction already granted was now expanded nation-wide. So yes, it means a lot.

5

u/mecks0 Jun 13 '24

They would have to appeal to the 5th Circuit, which is unlikely to reverse before petitioning SCOTUS. I would think they (the ATF/DOJ) won’t do anything until Loper Bright and Relentless decisions are handed down, hopefully reversing Chevron. A loss for the government in those two would make any appeals to get the brace rule reinstated largely a fools errand.

2

u/steelhelix Jun 13 '24

Exactly. I think a lot of people got confused due to the injunction and what effect this would have nationally. The odds of it being overturned are extremely small and so many other cases are liable to completely torpedo any chance of it coming back.

I get that people are upset that Trump pushed this during his tenure, but this result is better overall since the ATF can't be wishy-washy about it going back and forth anymore.