New BATF ruling on stabilizing braces today

[nonobaddog]

I bet if you paid the right lawyer a lot of money, or better yet, the right judge, you too could be injuncted. Money makes justice more flexible.

 

[JAL]

What I do not get is why all citizens do not get the protection of the injunction?

I recall an EO concerning immigration, that injunction was not just for the petitioner or even the circuit the court was in, it was nationwide. Why do we always get second class treatment?

Nationwide preliminary injunctions are extremely rare, even among the rarity of preliminary injunctions. There must typically be no other alternative injunction scope possible. They're usually issued to the minimum scope necessary to protect plaintiffs from irretrievable or unrecoverable damage until the case is decided. That's how they're supposed to work. It's always at the discretion of the court.

The Fat Lady hasn't sung yet. It's far from over. The only issue before the 5th Circuit at this time (for Mock v. Garland) is whether the District Court in Mock v. Garland abused its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction. Its current injunction was an emergency one issued by an emergency panel for the 5th Circuit. That is now awaiting a decision (with opinion) from its merits panel having heard oral arguments a few days ago. The current injunction(s) could very well vaporize when it does. The merits panel ( three judges drawn at random) wasn't an ideal one for a favorable outcome. The continuation of four other District Court preliminary injunctions, all in Texas, all hinge on the 5th Circuit's "injunction decision". The Mock v Garland District Court hasn't issued anything on the merits yet. None of them have in the nine cases (by my count) currently pending. There are no injunctions other than in Texas. Welcome to litigation in Federal Courts. They move at a snail's pace.

Footnote:
Another interlocutory appeal for a preliminary injunction is pending in the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals after the District Court in the Virginia case denied a preliminary injunction motion (Miller v. Garland, Eastern District of Virginia).

 

[Mgderf]

The Fat Lady hasn't sung yet. It's far from over.

Another interlocutory appeal for a preliminary injunction is pending in the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals after the District Court in the Virginia case denied a preliminary injunction motion (Miller v. Garland, Eastern District of Virginia).

"Let's go Brandon"

 

[JAL]

Now that the "pride parades" are over, these clowns are back to what they do....

 

[BigRed]

View attachment 284728

aft can ride atf coat tails all the way to hell.

 

[DadSmith]

Why does it take an act of congress to stop a bureaucracy from making law, or a sitting president from making law?
Neither can do that constitutionally. Yet today both do.
How is it upheld/enforced when it is not a law made by congress?
What I was taught in school of how our government is supposed to work is not what is going on today.

 

[Expat]

Why does it take an act of congress to stop a bureaucracy from making law, or a sitting president from making law?
Neither can do that constitutionally. Yet today both do.
How is it upheld/enforced when it is not a law made by congress?
What I was taught in school of how our government is supposed to work is not what is going on today.

Because those days it takes years to wind its way up to SCOTUS. Ultimately it’s because they don’t give a **** about the constitution and they know there are no consequences,

 

[Ingomike]

Because those days it takes years to wind its way up to SCOTUS. Ultimately it’s because they don’t give a **** about the constitution and they know there are no consequences,

BINGO!

 

[JAL]

Breaking News:
NRA files its own Pistol Brace lawsuit in Dallas Division, Northern District of Texas

National Rifle Association of America v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (Northern District of Texas)
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67553884/the-national-rifle-association-of-america-inc-v-bureau-of-alcohol/

Complaint filed on July 3rd (yesterday):
[@KokomoDave PDF Trigger Warning]
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.378632/gov.uscourts.txnd.378632.1.0.pdf

Thus far that's the only action on it other than the court assigning Judge Sam A. Lindsay, a 1998 Clinton appointee, to preside over the case. I wouldn't read too much into who appointed him. I'm certain more about how he stands on 2A issues will be forthcoming from others online who have better knowledge about him.

This makes lawsuit #10 that I'm aware of. Oddly, this one only has NRA as the named plaintiff thus far. Usually there are a couple of "poster child" individuals to ensure someone has standing before the court within its jurisdiction.

 

[nonobaddog]

Me too.

 

[BigRed]

Why does it take an act of congress to stop a bureaucracy from making law, or a sitting president from making law?
Neither can do that constitutionally. Yet today both do.
How is it upheld/enforced when it is not a law made by congress?
What I was taught in school of how our government is supposed to work is not what is going on today.

See post 221

Biden just released "new gun control rules"

At what point do the individuals within atf start being held accountable for coming up with this bull****? Termination of employment. Termination of benefits. Stripping of pensions and retirement benefits. As it is currently, these ******** pay no price whatsoever for violating their oath to...

www.indianagunowners.com

 

[edwea]

Because those days it takes years to wind its way up to SCOTUS. Ultimately it’s because they don’t give a **** about the constitution and they know there are no consequences,

Well, that and rank and file who enforce the laws either don't know any better or don't care about the constitutionality of it. We all know that the people making these "laws" aren't the ones enforcing them. They could refuse to act on unlawful laws, right?

 

[BigMoose]

BATFE should be this.... not a government agency.

 

[JAL]

Why does it take an act of congress to stop a bureaucracy from making law, or a sitting president from making law?
Neither can do that constitutionally. Yet today both do.
How is it upheld/enforced when it is not a law made by congress?
What I was taught in school of how our government is supposed to work is not what is going on today.

The House must originate bills to appropriate money. There are already plans afoot to defund portions of Biden's Executive Departments to put an end to their crap. The success of this will depend on the House holding the line and not caving to the Chuck Schumer's Senate.

 

[jwamplerusa]

The House must originate bills to appropriate money. There are already plans afoot to defund portions of Biden's Executive Departments to put an end to their crap. The success of this will depend on the House holding the line and not caving to the Chuck Schumer's Senate.

F*** the Senate. Stop funding ANYTHING which is not within the enumerated powers of the federal government. Preamble to the Bill of Rights, 9th and 10th Amendments.

 

[BigRed]

The house is filled with candy *** *******.

 

[BigRed]

When in the course of human events....

 

[JAL]

F*** the Senate. Stop funding ANYTHING which is not within the enumerated powers of the federal government. Preamble to the Bill of Rights, 9th and 10th Amendments.

Although Appropriations Bills must originate in the House, they must also be passed in the Senate before they can go to the Whitehouse. You're not going to get there with the House defunding anything unless the Appropriations Bill that does so gets past Chuck Schumer in the Senate.

This last time around, Speaker McCarthy made a shrewd gamble that SCOTUS would declare the Student Loan giveaway unconstitutional, so he bargained away defunding it in negotiating the Debt Limit Bill. Unlike other bills, An Appropriations Bill doesn't always need the 60 vote Cloture in the Senate.

 

[Expat]

F*** the Senate. Stop funding ANYTHING which is not within the enumerated powers of the federal government. Preamble to the Bill of Rights, 9th and 10th Amendments.

They shouldn’t have caved and passed the debt limit bill. Everyone kept worrying about a collapse of the government. Of course there was another option. Don’t spend more than is coming in like all of us would do. But no, like always the Republicans knuckled under.

 

[KLB]

They shouldn’t have caved and passed the debt limit bill. Everyone kept worrying about a collapse of the government. Of course there was another option. Don’t spend more than is coming in like all of us would do. But no, like always the Republicans knuckled under.

They have their own pet expenses they want to funnel money into, so it was always a given they would.