I don’t think it should be hard at all – just be honest, tell the truth, and be true to your oath. Be prepared to find another job if you need to. It’s better to bag groceries or load trucks at Lowe’s than to answer to God for malfeasance. But here is his story.
It was 2007 and I was assisting a call with an officer I’d never met before. He was from another team working overtime. Right in front of me he broke a kids nose with a punch. The septum was clearly deviated and blood was everywhere. The kid was handcuffed and the officer enquired of me “what should ‘we’ arrest him for?” “What did he do?” I enquired. “He called me a name.” he said. After 20 mins of him trying to persuade me we should fabricate a crime he had to let the kid go. “We need o do notes, get our story straight” he then told me. I don’t need assistance in writing what happened. I found a quiet place and wrote the facts. As I wrote I was joined by a female A/Sgt who knew this officer. She spent 20 mins trying to convince me this kid was a “shitbag” & my notes should ‘reflect the danger he posed’. I was disgusted. We don’t behave this way.
Oh, but you do indeed behave that way. This is a Canadian cop and he has all the proof in court documents, but it’s the same in the U.S.
As for all of those “constitutional Sheriffs and Deputies,” it’s important to know where they really stand. Here is a good analysis of what likely really happened at that gun store in Montana.
Guess what? The Great Falls, Montana, PD provided perimeter security for the IRS and ATF [5:48 in the video].
There you have it. Even in Montana, the cops have been corrupted. The Great Falls PD should have arrested the IRS and ATF agents when they showed up in the city limits.
If you own one of these things with a brace you have a decision to make. Doing nothing is still a decision. The article is about more than just the brace and covers AR pistols in .300 AAC Blackout among other things.
Like most people I can shoot more accurately with a rifle. An AR pistol with a brace is not a rifle but it does give at least three points of contact when used as intended. I bought a stripped lower receiver from my local gun shop and ordered a lower build kit from Palmetto State Armory. Online an upper receiver with a ten-inch barrel was ordered. Besides a red dot optic and flashlight, a detachable sling was desired. An SBA3 pistol brace was chosen because of the good reviews and the ambidextrous QD sling socket. After everything was assembled it became one of my favorite firearms. Accurate, low profile, in a caliber that had dozens of projectiles in weight and configuration with many suitable propellants that could be experimented with. But then came January of 2023.
The ATF rule 2021R-08F, almost 300 pages of nebulous wording of what classifies as a short-barreled rifle (SBR) includes overall length, weight, and eye relief of an optic. What it boils down to is if you have a barrel less than sixteen inches and a pistol brace the ATF now considers it an SBR.
I won’t rehearse the history of Matt Hoover and CRS Firearms. I think most of you know it anyway. I also won’t rehearse my love for logic. Most of you know that anyway. Mark does a nice job of finding a very relevant legal precedent that should have been applied before the idiots at the DOJ and ATF ever brought him to trial.
The ATF was never able to demonstrate that what Matt helped to sell could ever work, or did ever work. It was a collector’s item, and nothing more. Anway, here is the relevant part from the court case.
Hypotheticals further illustrate the weakness of this methodology. A mouse is not an “elephant” solely because it has three characteristics that are common to known elephants: a tail, gray skin, and four legs. A child’s bike is not a “motorcycle” solely because it has three characteristics common to known motorcycles: two rubber tires, handlebars, and a leather seat. And a Bud Light is not “Single-Malt Scotch,” just because it is frequently served in a glass container, contains alcohol, and is available for purchase at a tavern. To close with a firearm-related example: a hockey puck is not a “rubber bullet,” just because it has rounded sides, is made of vulcanized rubber, and is capable of causing injury when launched at high speeds. Learning that one object has three characteristics in common with some category may not be very helpful in determining whether the object in question belongs in that category.
I love the judge’s use of logic. All law school graduates should be required to take multiple courses in Aristotelian (or classic) logic, and furthermore, logic should be an integral part of the BAR exam. I’ve read books on logic. Why shouldn’t a lawyer be required to do the same thing?
Oh, no big deal. We’ll cover the cost of the stuff we broke. Sorry to have gotten the wrong room. As for the lady we threw into the road half naked, we let her go as soon as we figured out she wasn’t our target.
No biggie. See ya’.
Seriously. These people should all be on a road crew digging dirt and preparing to lay asphalt.
Gun Owners of America has filed a motion for a preliminary injunction against the ATF concerning the pistol brace rule. The motion can be found in its entirety here. The motion concludes as follows.
The fact that the Final Rule technically presents a (forced) choice does not absolve it of its unconstitutional sins. As the Fifth Circuit observed in BST Holdings v. OSHA, “the loss of constitutional freedoms ‘for even minimal periods of time … unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.’” 17 F.4th 604, 618 (5th Cir. 2021) (burden on liberty interests posed by vaccination mandate was irreparable harm) (quoting Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976)). The vaccination mandate in BST Holdings “threaten[ed] to substantially burden the liberty interests of reluctant individual recipients put to a choice between their job(s) and their jab(s).” Id. Here, the Final Rule imposes a similar choice, forcing individuals to choose between destroying their property or prosecution.
When the government is a party, the balance-of-equities and public-interest factors merge. See Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 435 (2009); Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d 134, 187 (5th Cir. 2016) (same). A court therefore must weigh whether “the threatened injury outweighs any harm that may result from the injunction to the non-movant” and whether “the injunction will not undermine the public interest.” Valley v. Rapides Parish Sch. Bd., 118 F.3d 1047, 1051, 1056 (5th Cir. 1997). There is no harm to ATF from pausing enforcement of the Final Rule and maintaining the status quo. The Final Rule claims to “enhance[] public safety,” 88 Fed. Reg. at 6481, yet ATF is able to point to only two handgun braces (out of millions) that have been criminally misused, see 88 Fed. Reg. at 6495. Even then, there is no evidence that those crimes could not have been committed using a different firearm. Weighing against this are the very real and ongoing irreparable harms to Plaintiffs discussed above. Indeed, the public is served when the law is followed, and “there is generally no public interest in the perpetuation of unlawful agency action.” Wages & White Lion Invs., LLC, v. U.S. Food & Drug Admin., 16 F.4th 528, 560 (5th Cir. 2021) (citation omitted). The balance of equities and public interest weigh heavily in favor of an injunction.
GOA and GOF have members and supporters nationwide. Exhibit 13 at ¶ 6. The geographic scope of interests presented, as well as the complications inherent to a piecemeal implementation or injunction of the Final Rule, which impacts criminal prosecutions and fundamental rights, support this Court granting nationwide relief.
For the foregoing reasons, this Court should preliminarily enjoin Defendants from enforcing the Final Rule.
Our friend Stephen Stamboulieh is one of the attorneys in this case.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen decision (issued June 23, 2022) was a pivotal ruling. Following up on the District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and the McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) decisions, Bruen reaffirmed private gun rights, quite solidly. Up until those three decisions, the Supreme Court had conspicuously ignored taking up any Second Amendment cases, for more than 50 years. But now, the highest court has made it quite clear that the right to keep and bear arms is nigh-on absolute.
I’ve mentioned the Bruen decision before in SurvivalBlog. But today, I’d like like to examine it more closely.
The majority opinion for Bruen was written by one of my heroes, Justice Clarence Thomas. He had previously lamented that the Second Amendment had been treated as “a disfavored right.” But in the 2022 decision, Justice Thomas set things write. He forthrightly wrote that the only gun regulations that can be deemed constitutional are ones that don’t infringe on conduct that is plainly covered by the text of the Second Amendment and that are “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition.” This part of Bruen means that any gun law enacted at any level must have a demonstrable parallel in regulations that were in place at the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights — meaning circa December, 1791. Thus, Bruen sets a very high bar for legislators to hurdle. If lawmakers cannot cite a similar law that existed after the War of Independence but before December, 1791, then any statute pertaining to arms of any description would be unconstitutional!
It’s an interesting rehearsal of some little known history, and with Bruen, history matters. In light of the decision, one has to ask by what authority does the F exist in ATF? Read the rest.
It does the same sort of thing we’ve observed so many times before with either those who call themselves constitutional Sheriffs or otherwise state lawmakers. They won’t use their own money or personnel to enforce federal regulations they believe are unconstitutional.
Well then. The FedGov SWAT teams are shaking in their jackboots!
But this is an easy letter to sign. No state or county representative has to enable or assist in the enforcement of federal laws anyway. Nothing changes with this letter.
The only real step that will make any difference is the threat to arrest any agent of the federal government who crosses state lines to enforce these infringements, and then carrying through with the threats.
Even if a court couldn’t make good on a change, they could leave them in jail for a few months due to overburdened court systems, strip them of their weapons, gear and credentials, and drop them off at the state line with nothing but a felony arrest record.
1 year, 10 months ago
