Gun Control Watch

[MechAg94]

There are drum magazines for AKs that hold 75 rounds with one in the chamber.  They use a wind-up spring to feed the ammo.

I have one of those sold by K-USA.  Works pretty good.  I have several of the 40 round mags.  Never had an issue with them.  The drum is a bit on the heavy side fully loaded.

[MechAg94]

Read more: https://www.ammoland.com/2024/06/federal-judge-vacates-the-atfs-pistol-brace-rule/#ixzz8d3ydaGgK
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

Federal Judge Vacates the ATF’s Pistol Brace Rule

Not just an injuction, but the rule is vacated so it is gone nationwide.  5th Circuit already ruled against the ATF on this so it unlikely to reverse it. 

A Texas Federal District Judge vacated the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ (ATF) Final Rule for pistol stabilizing devices.

“Consequently, the Court finds that the Final Rule violated the APA’s procedural requirements because it was not a logical outgrowth of the Proposed Rule,” the order read. “Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED and Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED as to this issue.”
-----------
“Under the Final Rule, the ATF estimated about 99% of pistols with stabilizing braces would be reclassified as NFA rifles,” the order reads. “The ATF contemporaneously issued approximately sixty adjudications pursuant to the Final Rule that reclassified different configurations of firearms with stabilizing braces as NFA rifles The ATF provided no explanations for how the agency came to these classifications and there is no ‘meaningful clarity about what constitutes an impermissible stabilizing brace.’ In fact, the Fifth Circuit “[could not] find a single given example of a pistol with a stabilizing brace that would constitute an NFA exempt braced pistol.”
--------
Judge O’Connor didn’t consider the Constitutionality of the rule because there was enough to vacate the rule under the APA. The Judge could send the rule back to the ATF to be modified, but he chose not to take this action because the rule is beyond repair. He could also apply the ruling just to the Plaintiffs, but he decided to apply the vacatur nationwide.

[Ben]

Tentatively good news. I guess we'll need more information (plus I'm not understanding all the legal stuff), but I'm unsure if it means the rule is permanently kaput or if the ATF can go back to the drawing board and come up with another brace ban scheme?

[MechAg94]

John Crump (author of the article) had a breaking news livestream on his youtube channel talking about it.  He said the ATF could start over on a similar, but he thinks they won't.  I am not sure I understood why.  He thinks there will be more court rulings coming up soon. 

[Ben]

I just watched a couple of youtubes on it and remain confused. I'm not the only one. The most common question in the various comment sections was, "Can I put a brace on or not?" 

[MechAg94]

Here is another recent state court ruling from Massachusetts. 

Read more: https://www.ammoland.com/?p=579842#ixzz8d43feGlK
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

Massachusetts Court Rules Against Police Chiefs Power to Deny the Second Amendment

It has to do with police chiefs power to arbitrarily deny carry licenses for subjective reasons. 

[WLJ]

I just watched a couple of youtubes on it and remain confused. I'm not the only one. The most common question in the various comment sections was, "Can I put a brace on or not?" 

Same here.   

[MechAg94]

I just watched a couple of youtubes on it and remain confused. I'm not the only one. The most common question in the various comment sections was, "Can I put a brace on or not?" 

I took it as a "Yes".  Meaning the previous situation from before this rule is back.  Braces are quasi-legal based on past ATF letters authorizing them.  I guess the youtube legal eagles will sound off soon enough. 

[MechAg94]

Either way, years of efforts by the ATF to put the genie back in the bottle have been frustrated. 

[Ben]

Either way, years of efforts by the ATF to put the genie back in the bottle have been frustrated.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of frustrating the ATF whenever possible. I just wish that for once we could get a ruling that is clear, concise, and concrete.

[WLJ]

Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of frustrating the ATF whenever possible. I just wish that for once we could get a ruling that is clear, concise, and concrete.

And stays that way

[dogmush]

I wonder what happens to the quarter mil or so "tax free" tax stamps they handed out?

Did those folks just get one over on the .gov?

Or because the rule those forms were signed under just got vacated, is ATF going to come after their $200?

[cordex]

I wonder what happens to the quarter mil or so "tax free" tax stamps they handed out?

Did those folks just get one over on the .gov?

Or because the rule those forms were signed under just got vacated, is ATF going to come after their $200?

I'll let you know.

[Ben]

I think I remember reading something (no idea if accurate) that said that the legalese ATF used made it not tax free, but more like tax deferred, and that they could come after people for the 200 ducats. Or the IRS could, because the ATF isn't allowed to waive taxes (as per what I read).

Though I don't think they would. They used that as an incentive, and if they were to turn around and suddenly say they want their money back (hey, this sounds analogous to their about-face on braces), then good luck the next time they tell people, "Hey, trust us".

[cordex]

They used that as an incentive, and if they were to turn around and suddenly say they want their money back (hey, this sounds analogous to their about-face on braces), then good luck the next time they tell people, "Hey, trust us".

It's not like they haven't given us ample reason to not trust them already.

[MechAg94]

Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of frustrating the ATF whenever possible. I just wish that for once we could get a ruling that is clear, concise, and concrete.

In this case, the rule was vacated because it violated procedures.  The constitutionality of the rule was not a factor here and remains to be decided.  There were several reasons to vacate the rule, but that is where the judge stopped. 

[MechAg94]

And stays that way

Unfortunately, that is never going to happen.  Even if the SC rules all gun laws are unconstitutional, that is only the rule of law until a future court overturns it.  We have already discussed before where we would be with 3 Hillary Clinton appointed judges instead of Trump doing it.  Same thing could come back around later.

[WLJ]

Unfortunately, that is never going to happen.  Even if the SC rules all gun laws are unconstitutional, that is only the rule of law until a future court overturns it.  We have already discussed before where we would be with 3 Hillary Clinton appointed judges instead of Trump doing it.  Same thing could come back around later.

Would be nice if we had something like a Constitution and a Bill of Rights to protect our rights from dictatorial politicians.
Oh wait we do.
Would be nice if the people wouldn't keep voting in politicians who treat that Constitution and Bill of Rights as nothing more than toilet paper.

[WLJ]

Just popped up my YT feed

BREAKING NEWS: Supreme Court Overtuns Bumpstock Ban!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBSIikUgmAI

[WLJ]

6-3 You can probably guess who the 3 were
Glancing at what Sotomayor said basically she couldn't care less what the Constitution says because Feelings > Constitution

 Supreme Court strikes down Trump-era ban on bump stocks on guns
https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/14/politics/supreme-court-bump-stocks/index.html

[WLJ]

Couldn't help but notice how CNN made sure you know this was during the Trump admin

[MechAg94]

late to the party.  John Crump was doing a livestream on it, but his ammoland article isn't up yet.

[WLJ]

late to the party.

?
Occurred less than an hour ago.

[MechAg94]

?
Occurred less than an hour ago.

Yeah, I was listening to John Crumps livestream and about to post the news without a link, but WLJ posted a link already. 

My youtube at work is restricted and some gun stuff just won't show up.  The guns & gadgets link won't play on my work computer.

[WLJ]

Yeah, I was listening to John Crumps livestream and about to post the news without a link, but WLJ posted a link already. 

My youtube at work is restricted and some gun stuff just won't show up.  The guns & gadgets link won't play on my work computer.

Got ya, I thought you meant, before your edit, that I was late to the party and I missed a post somewhere.