JackDaWack
-
Content Count
7,897 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
14 -
Feedback
100%
Posts posted by 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.
-
12 minutes ago, ESB said:It says anything with a barrel under 16" and a pistol brace is a SBR. There is an example of a 25" and 27" equally configured.
Still looking for parts of the document that make you think just because a firearm is over 26" a pistol brace will not be considered a stock?
Look, I'd love to believe what you say. I would love to be wrong. But I'm just not seeing that and I would want to be sure.
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.
-
8 minutes ago, Xtors said:Perhaps a dumb question so please go easy on me, but for a 26" 'Other' does the muzzle device need to be permanently attached with the new ATF rules (~12" BBL)?
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.
-
2 hours ago, Displaced Texan said:I’m just kinda thinking out loud here…and I am not a lawyer…
CAN the ATF ‘make’ laws like this? I seem to remember several .gov agencies who received the SCOTUS smack down in recent past for making their own rules (WVa vs EPA comes to mind).
Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote:“The Constitution does not authorize agencies to use pen-and-phone regulations as substitutes for laws passed by the people’s representatives,”
Could this be applied in a lawsuit against the ATF’s brace rule, meaning, that only Congress has the power to pass these type of laws?
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.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Old Glock guy said:Kinda sucks that our 2A rights (and I suppose others as well) hinge on the ideological/political whims of the judge hearing the case.
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.
1 hour ago, 124gr9mm said:Indeed.
That's the world we live in.
When you exhaust your options in the lower courts you then get to the Supreme Court for the 'final' decision, but that's just 9 individuals who operate with THEIR ideological/political whims.
It's the worst system in the world...except for all the others.
Exactly, the alternative is dictatorship.
-
26 minutes ago, oldguysrule649 said:FYI, press release from SAF. Bold emphasis is mine. My concern is that the ATF's attempt to redefine "rifle" could encompass "Others" within that redefinition. I hope not but the bold wording below coupled with the ATF doc showing what appears to be an Other, implies our Others could be in play. With that said, IANAL, and this topic really needs NJ centric legal analysis. Nothing I have seen since the new rule was released makes mention of Others, which I presume is mainly a NJ thing.
SAF RIPS ATF ‘FINAL RULE’ ON ARM BRACES, LAWSUIT WILL MOVE FORWARD
The Second Amendment Foundation today accused the Biden administration of “once again trying to trample the rights of gun owners” by allowing the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to adopt a “final rule” on arm braces for modern semiautomatic pistols.
While the definition of a rifle in federal law should be clear, noted attorney Chad Flores, who is representing SAF in a federal lawsuit filed two years ago that was stayed by the court in anticipation of this new rule, it is clear the Biden administration’s new definition of a rifle ignores tradition. SAF sued ATF and the U.S. Attorney General in 2021 in a case known as SAF et. al. v. BATFE, et. al.
SAF is joined in that case by Rainier Arms, LLC and two private citizens, Samuel Walley and William Green. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division.
According to Flores’ analysis of the 291-page Final Rule, the definition of a “rifle” now turns on a bewildering six-factor test. This new definition can be controlled not by the firearm’s objective characteristics, but instead by what ATF agents in D.C. think of a manufacturer’s marketing materials or the firearm’s “likely use.” The new rule itself is forced to admit its dramatic result: Under this new definitional regime, “a majority of the existing firearms equipped with a ‘stabilizing brace’ are likely to be classified as ‘rifles.’”
“The Biden administration’s new rifle definition overrides the true wish of Congress, to upend the reasonable expectations of stabilizing brace users and makers nationwide,” Flores said.
SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb noted the foundation’s 2021 lawsuit raised critical points about what has now been adopted by ATF.
“When we started this process,” Gottlieb said, “we anticipated where the agency’s efforts would lead. With our co-plaintiffs, we will continue to challenge this new arm brace rule.”
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.
-
1
-
-
30 minutes ago, ESB said:Quotes from the rule showing that firearms with barrels under 16" but OAL over 26" will not be considered a SBR?
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.
-
11 hours ago, ESB said:Before anyone else weighs in on what they think is and is not legal now. PLEASE TAKE A LOOK AT THESE LINKS FIRST!
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.
-
2 hours ago, dajonga said:IANAL, but in my reading of the worksheet, I see that.........
Section 1 - Prerequisites
2. The weapon must have an overall length between 12 and 26 inches.
"Weapon must meet both Prerequisites in order to proceed to Section II"
My NJ legal Troy A4 "other" with a 10.5" bbl and a pinned flash suppressor is over 26" as measured from the end of the buffer tube.
End of story.... correct?
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.
-
1 hour ago, 1LtCAP said:this consolidation of the cases is good for us then?
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
-
2
-
-
10 minutes ago, Cheflife15 said:Is printing illegal?
I'll be good for winter but will need something smaller come summer.
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.
-
1
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, ChrisJM981 said:That's why I said ask an attorney.
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.
-
2
-
-
On 1/11/2023 at 12:47 PM, DirtyDigz said:What would be the charge for carrying a handgun that was not on the list ordered by a NJ superior court - contempt of court?
If you violate the court order, the permit is automatically revoked and you are now carrying illegally.
NOT GOOD
20 minutes ago, ChrisJM981 said:2C is the law. The New Jersey Administrative Code (N.J.A.C.) is the codification of all rules and regulations made by the executive branch agencies of New Jersey. As I see it that is the opinion of the OAG. You'd need to ask an attorney about its legal weight on the side of a road or in a courtroom.
Legal questions shouldn't be directed at PDs or Courts, they are under no obligation to provide you with accurate information or legal advice.
-
1
-
-
-
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.
-
2 minutes ago, Mr.Stu said:It is not quite as damning as you might think - this is essentially what NJ will be saying when they appeal it to the 3rd Circuit.
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.
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, DirtyDigz said:OOPSIE!
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.
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, Carolina Native said:They will get that worked out, at least in Sparta. More interesting to me is that going forward, new permit holders won't have to carry a court order as we do now. I would hope they eliminate that for current permit holders to reconcile the two approaches.
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.
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, rockchef1 said:I just talked to someone from the courts today and he said my app is in the next bunch to be reviewed by the judge this Thursday.
Hope mine is in there, too.
1 hour ago, Bagarocks said:I received this information today from an extremely reliable source.
The magistrate of Sussex County is no longer accepting CCW permits. The new law written and passed by the New Jersey legislature and Signed by the Governor has taken them out of the process (anyone familiar with the law its old news).
So our State Government has essentially stopped all CCW permits in SC from being processed, circumventing our 2nd amendment rights.
This new law does not include the "new CCW permit" for carrying. If you look at the permits you will see "signed by Superior Court Judge"
Is anybody's Chief in their town also a Superior Court Judge? So the State has just found another way to keep us from exercising our second amendment rights. New Jersey legislature is great isn't it.
So Im just wondering, if and when your qualification anniversary date for expiration comes due, Do you just have to requalify or start the process all over again under the new Law.
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.
-
1 hour ago, DAHL said:AFAIK no CCW holder nationwide was ever allowed to carry in a Federal building, Courthouse or a National Park. Koons vs Reynolds had to do with the NJ state government deciding that ALL Private property is a sensitive location. This was clearly wrong and hence the TRO was issued. Some sensitive locations are still in effect and I encourage everyone to understand where they are. You carry there and you are a felon. The full extent of the cancel carry bill has yet to be decided. I believe that more of this egregious cancel carry law will be found unconstitutional and I believe that it will be brought to the 3rd circuit court of appeals to decide on its legitimacy.
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..
-
1
-
-
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.
18 minutes ago, DAHL said:Beware! You will never be able to legally carry on government or state owned property. Those are still judged to be "sensitive places. The TRO covers carry but only on most private property. You still cannot carry in Casinos, Pot Shops, Healthcare facilities, Schools, parks, Sporting events and all government buildings. Read the ruling.
NEVER EVER?
FYI, this is all preliminary, just the first few low hanging domino's of many to fall.
-
1
-
If Braces are Banned
in Other Firearms & Non-NFA
Posted
NJ is completely seperate from this. You have to adhere to both this and NJ law treated completely separately.
I used both responses as a means to clarify eachhother. If the 27" is a rifle in one, it's a rifle in the other since nothing in the rules differentiates one from the other past 26"
Federally speaking by some absurd reasoning a >26" pistol or other with a brace is just automatically a rifle