ATF Gets Beat In Court AGAIN Over Pistol Brace Rule!

Well, they took another L today and this was the case in the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals and this was FRAX case, the Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, and there’s a whole bunch of states that join them. I’m going to show you just a couple quick things here because we already know most of what we need to know on this case so there’s no need to rehash it, but before I jump into it I want to thank the sponsor of the video and that’s Hidden Hybrid Holsters. They’re patriots that make these extremely comfortable holsters by hand every day right over the hill in Ohio.

They use locally sourced Amish leather backers. They’re very soft against your body, make it very very comfortable. The kydex up front gives you great retention, correct trigger coverage, and a proper site channel. They have a lifetime warranty and you’re going to love them. If you love to carry and want to do it comfortably head over to Hidden Hybrid Holsters dot com and tell them that I sent you. Love their stuff. I have I don’t know four or five of them now and I’ll actually be heading up to see them in a couple weeks so that should be interesting.

On screen here is just page one of the lawsuit. I’d want you to see everybody involved in this. You have FRAC like I said the Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, the states of West Virginia, North Dakota, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Wyoming, NST Global LLC doing business as SB Tactical, BNT, USA, and Richard Cicero. Against the clowns, Merrick Garland who is the Attorney General, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Farms, and Explosives, and Steven Dedelback who is their Director.

Just a quick the quick history. Alex Bosco started the company SB Tactical. He invented the pistol brace, had ATF look at it, they said nope, not an issue, doesn’t violate the NFA, and several times the ATF has said adding a pistol brace to a firearm does not implicate the NFA at all and has it was like that for a very long time even through the Obama administration but then they got a hair across their booty the ATF did and they figured you know what we’re going to try this uh i’m going to try this chevron deference thing and see if we can pass another law i mean rule because we can’t pass law but it’ll have the teeth of a law because you’ll be found criminally responsible if you violate this stuff so a lot of a lot of people sue there are a lot of cases and frack i think this is that there’s one other case after this but we’ve heard from every other case frack originally they lost at the district court level uh loss they weren’t given a preliminary injunction is the right way to say there wasn’t a loss uh but they were seeking a preliminary injunction and the uh the circuit court said i mean the district court said nope we’re not going to do that so the appeals of the three judge panel in the eighth who only looks at why the court denied the preliminary injunction okay they’re not looking at the totality of everything they’re not looking this isn’t a decision on the merits this is just looking at why it wasn’t denied the preliminary injunction that was requested so i’m going to show you a couple quick things that the uh the judge has said and we’ll go home the big thing they looked at was that it’s a final agency uh action and it was not a logical outgrowth from the proposed rule we all know that there wasn’t that worksheet that you know if you had this this and it was this color and it smelled this way then it must equal an spr the judge has looked at things that the etf left in there that were very very vague like rear surface area suitable for shouldering and they mentioned how there was no way for anybody no to know what was going to be considered a stock or a pistol brace because the etf likes to operate in vague gray areas so they can catch everybody they can whenever they feel like it so the judges kind of hit back on that they also hit back on some of the things the etf they’re just asses uh if you remember when this rule was put through there were things like uh depending on how it was marketed would determine if it was an spr or not or better yet this was the funny one uh how the market share how the customers the end users how they used it would determine on whether is an spr from in the manufacturing uh just just ridiculous ridiculous and what the judges saw here it was a two to one decision it was one ass clown in dissent the look at this part here about the injunctive relief says the district court declined to address the remaining injunctive factors and we typically do not address other factors for the first time on for the district court is in the best position to evaluate all of the evidence and weigh the factors to determine whether the injunction should issue because we hold the coalition is likely to succeed on the merits coalition is frack it was abuse of discretion to deny an injunction based solely on that factor we note that while this appeal was pending the district court in the fifth circus remand from mock mock v garland fpc’s case held the final rule violated the apa and ordered it be vacated the fifth circuit consolidated that order with other appeals and scheduled oral arguments for september 2024 though the district court’s vacator and appeal thereof bear on the necessity of injunctive relief an injunction may be warranted if vacator does not sufficiently redress the plaintiff’s injury the district court is best suited to determine to what extent injunctive relief remains necessary that’s why the conclusion he says we reverse the order denying a preliminary injunction and remand with instructions to reconsider the motion for preliminary injunction consistent with this opinion and circuit judge shepherd dissented but i don’t care what he had so it’s going back to the district court in the eighth for the preliminary injunction fifth circuit still vacated the rule you still are covered if you’re a member of all of the groups that have secured injunctions for their folks goasaf fpc the nra got one and i think one so this rule is going down uh in flames but it’s going through the process september it’s next month that’s when we have the hearings on the mock v garland and the other consolidated cases that’s going to be the big one so i will keep you in the know you want to stay in the loop all you got to do is subscribe to the channel right down below it’s free doesn’t cost you anything and it just lets youtube know that people actually care about the second amendment here on youtube regardless of how much youtube wants to suppress it most of the people in the country care about their rights so join this agroi freedom family and i appreciate you all see you on the next one take care
[tr:trw].

See more of Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News on their Public Channel and the MPN Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News channel.