JUDGE, RULE'S AGAINST ATF ................ !

[renagadeinjun]

FRAME / RECIEVER RULE by ATF ruled ' FACIALLY UNLAWFUL' .................. !
check out 'gun & gadgets ......... post for info ......
U.S. District court
Northen district Texas
Fort Worth division" civil action no. 4:22-cv-00691-0 "

 

[lostchild]

Link would be handy.

 

[renagadeinjun]

 

[K79540]

A glimmer of hope

 

[outlaw1961]

On YouTube, I think the title mr Guns n Gear posted yesterday about a ruling the ATF will release in Dec concerning braces.
somehow the form was released and stated you will have to do a form 1 on braces. ATF will have a amnesty period to do so. I am sure the court filings will come fighting this as soon as it becomes official

 

[GAgunLAWbooklet]

I can't find a link, nothing online except on Twitter and I don't trust anything that's reported by bloggers on Twitter

 

[GAgunLAWbooklet]

On YouTube, I think the title mr Guns n Gear posted yesterday about a ruling the ATF will release in Dec concerning braces.
somehow the form was released and stated you will have to do a form 1 on braces. ATF will have a amnesty period to do so. I am sure the court filings will come fighting this as soon as it becomes official

But this thread is not on the subject about ATF saying that most arm braces are actually stocks and create short-barreled rifles once you install them.

Instead this thread's OP is about ATF ruling that an upper receiver of an AR can be a serial number registered "firearm receiver" in itself, and ATF is proposing to expand the number of critical parts on any gun that have to be serial numbered and are considered firearm frames.

 

[Sowega86]

Greater detail of the case from 2A attorney, Mark Smith who's also a member of the SCOTUS BAR:

 

[Control for Smilers]

AFT can suck me off. no cap on god fr fr dead homies.

 

[gh1950]

I can't find a link, nothing online except on Twitter and I don't trust anything that's reported by bloggers on Twitter

He mentions the name of the case, and you can Google it. https://www.firearmspolicy.org/vanderstok

Your reservations are well founded.

For example, he says he doesn't understand why the judge only applied the injunction in favor of one company. Well, it's a national injunction against ATF enforcing the rule, so it doesn't have to extend to more than one company. ATF admits that 120,000 + companies will be affected by the rule., some to the point of dissolution, and the judge finds this ATF finding persuasive. So it's not as if the judge was unaware of the consequences of his ruling.

The biggest omission that Bubba makes is that the plaintiffs were Vanderstok, an individual, Firearms Policy Coalition, some sort of gun rights organization, and Tactical Machining, a gun, parts, and kit manufacturer.

The judge granted the injunction only in favor of Tactical Machining, and other manufacturers, and declined to grant it in favor of the individuals or the group, a major holding in the case Bubba totally omits mentioning. The other plaintiffs have until Sept. 8 to present evidence on why they would be irreparably harmed if an injunction is not granted. Until then, ATF is free to enforce the rule against individuals, and can continue to do so if the the injunction is not granted.

I'm am not sufficiently well versed to determine what this means in real world terms for individuals. It could mean that they still can buy kits or 80% receivers without going through an FFL but would have to register the part or kit before or at the time of assemblying it into a gun. Point is that individuals were not granted any relief by this case, a pretty substantial point that Bubba doesn't make.

To say ATF was "crushed" is a bit of an overstatement.