ATF's brace ban struck down again

[Tenring]

This is a good one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ko-2KwkkVxc

 

[vvalter_vvhite]

So, I came here to ask about braces as I have not touched my AR pistol for nearly 2 years now. Are we now OK now to put back the SB brace and put an optic in addition to a BUS, and no more registration?

Thanks

 

[Half Cocked]

So, I came here to ask about braces as I have not touched my AR pistol for nearly 2 years now. Are we now OK now to put back the SB brace and put an optic in addition to a BUS, and no more registration?

Thanks

Yeah, I guess so.

 

[kenpoprofessor]

So, I came here to ask about braces as I have not touched my AR pistol for nearly 2 years now. Are we now OK now to put back the SB brace and put an optic in addition to a BUS, and no more registration?

Thanks

You're asking the wrong people, you should be asking your lawyer.

Have a great, gun carryin', Kenpo day

Clyde

 

[GunNut]

So, I came here to ask about braces as I have not touched my AR pistol for nearly 2 years now. Are we now OK now to put back the SB brace and put an optic in addition to a BUS, and no more registration?

Thanks

You're asking the wrong people, you should be asking your lawyer.

Have a great, gun carryin', Kenpo day

Clyde

True That

The answer only lies in the ATF/Govt decision of the day.
Mondays maybe only because it was legally struck down, but other days maybe if they choose to make you a test case

ALL this BS in Unconstitutional
16" rifle barrel length WHO CARES the length>
bump stock, rifle to pistol, pistol to rifle

ALL is BS

 

[kenpoprofessor]

True That

The answer only lies in the ATF/Govt decision of the day.
Mondays maybe only because it was legally struck down, but other days maybe if they choose to make you a test case

ALL this BS in Unconstitutional
16" rifle barrel length WHO CARES the length>
bump stock, rifle to pistol, pistol to rifle

ALL is BS

What I know is that if you have doubts about your "legality" concerning firearms, it's best not to ask questions about it to folks who are not lawyers. Seems too many folks are caught up in bad advice from others and end up regretting it. I make no assumptions, and do what I feel is appropriate, and/or get legal advice from qualified folks.


Have a great, gun carryin', Kenpo day

Clyde

 

[Azgunlover69]

In other news, PSA is selling braced pistols again, so I'm sure their lawyers have determined the legality of the ruling.

 

[mtptwo]

. Talk about slapping the ATF in the face

 

[campinginaz]

In other news, PSA is selling braced pistols again, so I'm sure their lawyers have determined the legality of the ruling.

Great point! I saw that as well.

 

[Tenring]

So, I came here to ask about braces as I have not touched my AR pistol for nearly 2 years now. Are we now OK now to put back the SB brace and put an optic in addition to a BUS, and no more registration?

Thanks

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnWStM2DfXY

 

[vvalter_vvhite]

@Tenring... thank you for the info !

 

[Tenring]

@Tenring... thank you for the info !

Just a video not advise, but I like watching them, they do seem to be up to date on what is happening.

 

[pneuby]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K55LoweP4s0

 

[Half Cocked]

The administrative state loses another round in the Mock v. Garland (pistol brace ban) case.
.
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qt9N1p8JamA[/media]
.
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWY7edkkZR4[/media]

 

[BigNate]

Sure looks like this one is dead-dead... Hope that is the case... although I was sort of hoping that it would be the thing that SCOTUS uses to end the Chevron doctrine...

 

[kenpoprofessor]

Sure looks like this one is dead-dead... Hope that is the case... although I was sort of hoping that it would be the thing that SCOTUS uses to end the Chevron doctrine...

Well, I was more hoping they'd overturn Wickard V. Filburn myself. SCOTUS should be hearing a similar case to the one they invalidated. There may be more to their decision in these other cases.

And in other news, SCOTUS shot down the bump stock ban.


https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-strikes-down-federal-ban-bump-stocks

Have a great, gun carryin', Kenpo day

Clyde

 

[XJThrottle]

Sure looks like this one is dead-dead... Hope that is the case... although I was sort of hoping that it would be the thing that SCOTUS uses to end the Chevron doctrine...

Well, I was more hoping they'd overturn Wickard V. Filburn myself. SCOTUS should be hearing a similar case to the one they invalidated. There may be more to their decision in these other cases.

And in other news, SCOTUS shot down the bump stock ban.


https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-strikes-down-federal-ban-bump-stocks

Have a great, gun carryin', Kenpo day

Clyde

Does Mr. Cargill get his property back now?...

 

[1bardan+]

Will atf buy bump stocks for all the people that destroyed their’s per atf instructions?

 

[YNOTAZ]

I just read the full majority opinion and interestingly they did not take on Chevron Doctrine, but they did take such a huge swipe at it that this decision may be quoted in other SCOTUS cases, especially those pertaining to any ATF, "new interpretations" of existing law. Here is the closing quote:

"And, “it is never our job to rewrite . . . statutory text under the banner of speculation about what Congress might have done.” Henson v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., 582 U. S. 79, 89 (2017). 9 III

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

It is so ordered."

SCOTUS also gave their reasoning for this statement, in a footnote, which may significantly narrow the scope of Chevron.

 

[kenpoprofessor]

I just read the full majority opinion and interestingly they did not take on Chevron Doctrine, but they did take such a huge swipe at it that this decision may be quoted in other SCOTUS cases, especially those pertaining to any ATF, "new interpretations" of existing law. Here is the closing quote:

"And, “it is never our job to rewrite . . . statutory text under the banner of speculation about what Congress might have done.” Henson v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., 582 U. S. 79, 89 (2017). 9 III

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

It is so ordered."

SCOTUS also gave their reasoning for this statement, in a footnote, which may significantly narrow the scope of Chevron.

They've finally started making opinions on the rights of the citizen with the "rule of levity". I was wondering why that was never a thing over the last 50 years, seems they're finally coming to an understanding of it. Now, if they'd go after Wickard V. Filburn, we could get Obamacare dismantled and the suppressor laws of each state in.

Have a great, gun carryin', Kenpo day

Clyde