CMMG Challenges ATF On Pistol Brace Regulations!

➡ CMMG, a company that makes and sells tools, is fighting against the ATF (a government agency) because of a new rule they made about pistol braces. This rule is unclear and could make a lot of people into criminals. CMMG thinks this rule is unfair and is taking legal action to stop it. They’re doing this to protect their business and the rights of people who own guns.

I always say support those who support you. And I am so glad to have this company as a sponsor. CMMG. Not only am I going to tell you that you can save a ton when you buy tools there with my code GNG ten, but I’m also going to tell you that once again they have jumped in the fray and put their hard earned money where their mouth is.

And they have filed an amicus brief against the ATF in the pistol brace case in the fifth circuit. There’s a lot of cases that have been smushed together and CMMG is jumping in because the obviously, guys, we’ve been following this new rule since the very beginning. It’s not only unconstitutional and arbitrary and capricious and violation of the Administrative Procedures act. Take all that stuff, violation of the rule, lenity, all that stuff balled into one.

It’s also difficult on the companies who make and sell items that are related to the two a right and what CMMG is looking to do here, this is the beginning of their amicus brief right here on the screen. But what they’re looking to do is to say, hey, look here, judge, you need to keep this stay in place. The one that we’re all enjoying. The rule was stayed, as well as those who are individual members of GOAFPC and SAF.

But you need to keep this global stay because it’s unconstitutional. They need to be stopped. And here are a few reasons you should do that. And they have a pretty cool amicus brief. I’m not going to bore you reading the whole thing. I’ll read you just a couple of quick highlights headlines and then we’ll wrap this up. So this was literally just filed as I am recording this.

And here’s their main argument. The court should affirm the Brito district court’s universal stay. They say that the public interest factors confirm that the Brito district court’s universal stay is appropriate. They also say the ATF’s prior position in the Brito case confirms that the district court’s universal stay is appropriate. And in that at the very beginning of that case, ATF said that the court should fashion a broad relief in that case.

You know, just, let’s just fix it. The ATF said that and then they got hammered, they got punched in the teeth and now they’re like, hey, wait, we really didn’t mean that. CMMG also says the court should affirm that all challengers are likely to succeed on the merits. And that is, like I said, it violates the APA. It’s arbitrary and capricious violates the rule of lenity unconstitutional. ATF doesn’t have that power.

They’ve stepped outside of their authority. All the things that judges have said in all the other cases working well, they’re all pinned together now. But that still applies. Nothing has changed. CMMG also said that all challengers are likely to succeed because the rule exceeds ATF statutory authority. ATF can’t make law. They can’t make definitions change. Only Congress can do that. That is illegal. It gets better. All challengers are likely to succeed because the rule is contrary to lenity.

What does that mean? When there is a vague rule, it can’t have criminal penalties. Basically, just to summarize. And ATF’s vague rule has criminal penalties. It basically will make every braced pistol except for like less than 1% an SBR just like that. Making stuff that’s been sold by the tens of millions, braces and brace pistols. Tens of millions of them are on the market now. Everybody would be a felon in violation of the NFA.

That’s. That’s not cool. Violates the rule. Alentity all challengers are likely to succeed because the rule is arbitrary and capricious. And I’m gonna read one part here that will hopefully dial this in for you. The factors are arbitrary capricious when considered individually rear surface area the rule establishes that the term rifle shall include a weapon that is equipped with an accessory component or other rearward attachment that provides surface area that allows the weapon to be fired from the shoulder.

Commenters asked the agency to clarify the amount of surface area it deemed sufficient, but ATF rejected those pleas. ATF acted arbitrarily and capriciously by failing to include a more specific surface area criterion for three reasons. First, ATF failed to explain why it could not offer a more precise factor, and when referring to a DC circuit court case, it says that the flaw that the DC circuit identified in this other case is evident here.

In this rule, the preamble states, ATF will not attempt to precisely measure or quantify the surface area or make the determination based on the existence of any minimum surface area, but it does not say why it will not do so or claim that it would be impossible to provide a concrete standard. Second, ATF’s refusal to provide a metric contradicts the reasons the agency gave for abandoning its original proposal.

According to the preamble, ATF abandoned its worksheet proposal from the notice because it was open to subjective interpretation and application and did not provide a particular metric to quantify the rear surface area. ATF chose to instead proceed with the objective design features that are readily ascertainable. But ATF’s new test, enough surface area to allow shouldering, is still open to subjective interpretation and application and lack symmetric. Thus, because ATF’s decision is internally inconsistent, it is arbitrary and capricious.

Third, in adopting the surface area factor, ATF revealed that it failed to consider both an important aspect of the problem and a reasonable alternative. The record shows that commenters raised significant and unrebutted concerns that the agency’s proposed surface area criterion lacked information regarding how to apply. The factor was subjective and would not assist the public or industry to determine if a firearm is covered. These commenters explain that the problem stemmed from no metric for quantifying the surface area and thus requested specific metrics.

ATF summarily asserted without any explanation and despite having said the opposite elsewhere, that it was not appropriate or necessary to specify a metric that falls well short of what is needed to demonstrate, the agency grappled with an important aspect of the problem before it, or considered another reasonable path forward. Then it goes into the weight, length, and length of pull of the pistol, and if it’s similar to that of a rifle, then that makes it a rifle even though it doesn’t have a shoulder stock and it’s not a rifle.

Arbitrary. Incapacious. What the ATF did was just create a rule that’s so gray and it’s consistently malleable that they can make it work however they need to, to screw you and screw me and violate the rights of the american citizens. And CMMG says, yeah, that’s illegal. They should be stopped. So I can’t say this enough. Anytime any company that is making products that we all love puts the money up that they earn from that, and Jeff and the ownership team and Paul and Mike, my friend, all my friends at CMMG, thank you for doing this.

They’re taking money out of their own pockets, the owners are, and saying we are suing the ATF because it’s so damn vague. Our business is being affected, our rights are being affected and we will not stand for that. And listen, in addition to just filing this lawsuit literally five minutes ago, this is their statement. On March 29, 2024, CMMG is recommitting to a legal lawsuit against the ATF and the ATF’s brace rule.

This action represents our commitment to our customers. First and foremost, we are gun owners too, and joining a united front against those who want to take our second amendment rights is something CMMG takes personal. As the rule sits right now. There is no closure or clarity for a manufacturer or customer to comfortably move in a confident direction. This statement shows that there is a voice for the people in the fight and we want partners and customers alike to know that manufacturers such as CMMG are doing its part to fight against our eroding liberties.

We plan to continue to fight for our second amendment rights and what is rightfully ours. And I am so proud to call these folks friends. I am so proud that they sponsor this channel. I’m so glad to be a team with them. Go over there and support those who support you. Use code gng ten and I’ll save you some money over there. But man, way to go cMmg.

Other manufacturers need to step up and do what CMMG is doing, putting their money where their mouth is. The second amendment means more and there is no industry if we don’t have that right. Guys and gals, thank you for your time. I hope that you are going into Easter weekend and I hope that you’re rejuvenated. I hope that you are blessed and may God bless you. I love each and every single one of you.

I’ll see you on the next one. Take care. .

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