JackDaWack

Another commenter disagreed with the overall length requirement and incorrectly asserted that “if two AR-type pistols equipped with a stabilizing brace have the same weight, but one has an overall length of 24 [inches] and the other has an overall length of 27 [inches], the latter would automatically be a short-barreled rifle” They said the latter would NOT automatically be a sbr. And it's a pistol to pistol comparison. The Department agrees with one commenter’s concerns regarding the outcome under the proposed Worksheet 4999 in a scenario in which two firearms with an attached “brace” device weigh the same and one is 25 inches in length and the other is 27 inches in length. The latter firearm under the worksheet would have been classified as a rifle when equipped with a “stabilizing brace,” not a short-barreled rifle as asserted by the commenter, on the basis that a firearm with an overall length exceeding 26 inches would be impractical and inaccurate to fire one handed due to the imbalance of the weapon, and thus would need to be shouldered

Those are JUST the measurements criteria they need to meet to justify when a brace is a stock. They still have to say when the part of the definition "stock" is met.

You need to quote that because I don't see it in the rule section. Further more, such a statement would negate the entire premise or their worksheet since every pistol with a stock is now banned. But you seem to still have it backwards on the law must say what isn't allowed. If I can't find what I'm looking for that makes it legal. I think it's pretty obvious what they are trying to do. The rule states "provided other factors listed in the rule" to which the form they have is used to determine those other factors.

Barrel length has not changed. As always the length Is to the end of the barrel threads with out one pinned, or it includes the length of the muzzle device if one is pinned.

No, rules clarify law not "add to it" This is an attempt to create a "substantially identical" text to the law, and that shit won't fly. The ATF says a stock is a stock and a brace is a brace... but if a pistol is substantially identical to a rifle, it is a rifle. There is no substantially identical clause in the law. So right off the bat they have overreach.

Well, yes and no. The issue is reviewed by a single judge, then 3 more, possible en bac by the entire circuit and possibly 9 more at SCOTUS.. so there are a decent amount of "checks" on those opinions. Exactly, the alternative is dictatorship.

You could argue the language does affect others, but they created a strict system of determination that excludes them.. The good news really is in the rule itself, it redefines so much outside of the legislative context that the ATF won't be able to defend the rule changes. Remember, rules clarify law they don't redefine it. All of the criteria they created is in addition to the law, not clarifying it.

I would also add, their pictures show a few firearms that don't even meet the definition of SBR under their points system which they did not adopt. There apparently is no point system anymore, and they just get to say if it looks like a rifle, it must be one? The form that was posted shows if it's over 26" they are not assessing the brace. So somewhere else in the rule has to say if it's over 26" with a less than 16" barrel with any brace it's an SBR and I don't see that.

That's not how this works I updated my response to be more clear. The rule must be clear on what IS a SBR, not what isn't. No where in the rule is a determining factor for a weapon such as an other, designed to be fired with two hands and over 26" and how a brace would be classified under those conditions. I dont see in the rule, where if over 26" and under 16" barrel, with a brace it's considered a SBR. The point system for determining if a brace is a stock excludes anything over 26". They go on to state if it's "designed" to be fired from the shoulder, but offer no way to determine that other than comparing it to a "rifle counterpart".. they say, if it looks like a rifle it must be one... clear as mud huh? But this was all an explanation as to how they came up with their point system, which again excludes others.

Pictures mean nothing, not a single measurement is given unless the model is explicitly labeled. The first few paragraphs of the rule outline an SBR can be over 26"... but there is noprocedurual rule to determine if they are rifles.

Correct. As has been previously reviewed in the proposed rules, the published rule does not apply to anything under 26". My only concern would be with an AOW, but considering that's already NFA I probably wouldn't worry.

Judge Bumb has Bruen pretty well outlined "road mapped" with how to assess sensitive places. That was the argument for consolidation. Williams reviewed and agreed with it. It's not "in favor" for us or the state, it simply reiterates what Bruen would allow as a restriction. The state wanted Williams to create her own road map, using the states absurd logic. Williams saw no reason to hash out something she already said was what she would have conclude herself. So yes, it's good considering we know where the bar is set, but then again Williams could have set that same bar by her own admission. It really just moves things along faster for us. Either way we know in writing Bumb is a REAL JUDGE. That's the win. The remaining sensitive places will follow the same strict reasoning as the ones already

It's probably not gonna matter by summer. Bumb has outlined the entire "test" for sensitive places, to which Williams was impressed and in agreement with. If she is as true to Bruen with sensitive places, the rest of the issues will follow similar reasoning. Basically 90% of this law has certainty to be blocked under her current assessment given the states most recent (weak or nonexistent) arguments. All we needed was a "real" judge(not some activist) to assess the law under Bruen, and it seems we got that.

100% I was just clarifying why an attorney is the proper choice. At the very least, with a lawyer you claim you were provided improper council if they were to give you false information. Can't do that with anyone else.

If you violate the court order, the permit is automatically revoked and you are now carrying illegally. NOT GOOD Legal questions shouldn't be directed at PDs or Courts, they are under no obligation to provide you with accurate information or legal advice.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/delaware/articles/2022-09-24/judge-bars-enforcement-of-delaware-ghost-gun-restrictions

Yet, Delaware has NOT appealed their ban on ghost guns.. probably becuase NJ democrats begged them not to.

lol, anyone hear from Delaware yet? Democrats arent exactly excited about appealing these issues anymore when they lose.

You wouldn't say "the court doesn't understand x y z" You would say you disagree with their understanding. Another point, if a judge can't understand NJ state law, then how the hell could anyone else? Not smart.

Yeah, Cai isn't as smart as people seem to think. She may not have many solid arguments to make, but she could at least not offend the judge she now has to convince. There are ways to make the same point without offending the court.

I wouldnt be so sure they will get it "worked out" quickly. While they are good with fpid pistol permits etc.. it took 3 months to run a background check and call my references for the Carry permit. Applied end of August and I still don't have it.

Hope mine is in there, too. Well, truth be told you had to start the process all over again every 2 years anyway. You didn't just submit updated qualifications, you had/have to complete an entire application everytime. Individual police departments will have to figure out next steps based on when each part of the new law takes effect. Just another delay.

You can carry in national parks, and on federal property.. IN certain buildings is different. If they placed the limit at state buildings were official duties are conducted, the only one with historic significance that would be likely. You said "Never" with a pretty broad range of places. Keep in mind this is the "mini" case against the state. Like I said, low hanging fruit... clearly. This was smart by all the 2a groups..

Funny, I have seen NOTHING is the main stream news and its been a couple hours now to publish something basic... it's like they don't want anyone to know. Will wait and see if that changes. NEVER EVER? FYI, this is all preliminary, just the first few low hanging domino's of many to fall.

Imagine passing a law and having it struck down within a "week". Really is a straight slap to the face.