Previous Post
Next Post

As we noted last week, three court injunctions are currently in place blocking the ATF’s enforcement of its arbitrary about face rule that now regulates previously legal brace-equipped pistols as short barreled rifles under the NFA. The three cases in question were brought by, among others, three gun rights organizations; the Firearms Policy Coalition, Gun Owners of America and the Second Amendment Foundation. The judges who issued those injunctions ruled that they apply to all members of the three gun rights groups.

Given that only a tiny fraction of gun owners bothered to register their firearms during the ATF’s tax stamp-free period, it shouldn’t really surprise you that there’s been an uptick in interest in joining one or all three orgs. Here’s the Second Amendment Foundation’s statement on the surge they’re seeing in membership . . .

Following the clarification by a federal judge regarding the scope of a preliminary injunction in the Second Amendment Foundation’s case against the Biden administration’s new “arm brace rule” – that it applies to SAF members – interest in membership was so heavy during the first 24 hours it crashed the website.

U.S. District Judge Jane J. Boyle last week clarified her order granting, in part, SAF’s preliminary injunction in a case known as SAF, et.al. v. ATF, et. al. In that clarification, she wrote, “The Court confirms that its Preliminary Injunction Order applies to both the Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. and its members.”

SAF is joined in the case by Rainier Arms, LLC and two private citizens, Samuel Walley and William Green. They are represented by attorney Chad Flores at Flores Law in Houston, Texas.

“Interest in SAF membership has been simply stunning,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “In our 49 years of existence, we have never experienced such a spontaneous organic groundswell of public interest, from all over the country. Not only does this show the importance of fighting these legal battles on behalf of our members, and American gun owners in general, it also underscores the degree of public interest in the arm brace issue. We are both proud and humbled by the surge in memberships from people who see SAF as leading the charge against the ATF’s flip on pistol braces.”

“When Judge Boyle confirmed that our members are protected by the preliminary injunction,” noted SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut, “we were delighted, and obviously, so were the tens of thousands of people who quickly visited our website, causing it the overload. Luckily, that was a temporary problem, and we’re pushing ahead with the case.”

SAF offers several different tiers of memberships which are available here. Memberships can be for individuals, businesses and organizations. Annual membership is $15, a five-year membership is $50 and a life membership is $150. Membership is effective upon date of receipt.

For questions regarding membership, please contact [email protected].

Previous Post
Next Post

54 COMMENTS

  1. This could also prove to be a useful technique for future legal challenges as well.

    “Conservative” courts typically shy away from granting national injunctions. But by using associational standing to get injunctive relief for a group’s members, advocacy groups can bring test cases in favorable venues/circuits, and the results will be de facto nationwide, as the feds will be enjoined from enforcing it as to the plaintiffs’ members regardless of where they live.

    • The Second Anendment does not require a membership to any organization any more than a membership is required for lawsuit protection of civil rights, free speech, etc.

      The hurry-up excuse for an impromptu FPC membership drive is along the lines of telling old people if they do not join the AARP they won’t be seen as equals for elderly protection.

      If FPC actually represented The Second Amendment it would be an all or nothing across the board inclusive We-The-People deal or let the chips fall where they may.

      • I am an endowment member of the NRA (not another dime until Wayne LaPew is gone). I am also a member of the FPC, NAGR, and RMGO. Your blathering is just that. I am fighting against the history of rot while also fighting against the future of tyranny. Put up or shut the fuck up woman.

        • muckmouth…When the day comes you begin fighting I’ll let you know. Until that happens take your laundry list of pissant qualifiers and gfy.

        • dipshit Deb you are a twat. nobody does anything good enough to satisfy your winey ass. so if everyone here upsets you why don’t you leave? we won’t miss you

        • Six months prior I misplaced my work and after that I was blessed sufficient to falter upon a extraordinary site which truly spared me. I begun working for them online and in a brief time after I’ve begun averaging 15k bgf a month… The finest thing was that cause I am not that computer smart all I required was a few essential writing aptitudes and web get to to begin.
          :
          ) AND Great Luckiness.:
          )
          HERE====)>>> https://payincashh.blogspot.com

        • I’d wager that my continued financial support of these organizations does infinitely more than your cut n paste. 100 bucks for each of these groups every year multiplied by their membership numbers has a lot more sway than your yammering about gun control’s racist roots.

        • An eminent British scientist once dismissed the infamous Soviet psuedoscientist Trofim Lysenko as so ignorant of basic scientific principles that trying to have a discussion with him “was like trying to explain differential calculus to a child who had not learned his twelve-times table.”

          So it is with Lil’ Debbie and anything related to legal procedures or principles. She has zero understanding of fundamental legal concepts like standing (which, as I have repeatedly explained, is why FPC cannot sue on behalf of nonmembers or to vindicate the rights of “everybody”), jurisdiction, ripeness, etc.

          Now, you don’t have to have a law school education in order to have or express strong feelings or opinions on the Second Amendment. But when you cast aspersions on groups like the FPC, who are doing a yeoman’s job of things recently, based on a wholly incorrect understanding of legal concepts that have repeatedly been explained to you . . . .

          Forget it muckraker, it’s Debbietown.

        • LKB,
          For the life of me I don’t understand why she gives you so much crap or others for that matter. I appreciate your knowledge of the law and the the fact that you share it with us. As far as Debbie goes I agree with her that education is important as to how these unconstitutional laws came about but that does absolutely nothing to advance our cause in a court of law. And believe me I know how expensive it can get when fighting for your nieces when trying to take them from drug addled parents. Money is KING!

        • mr,

          Thanks. The Debbie mindset is not unusual; see, e.g., the kids on college campuses (whose tactics are unfortunately spreading to the wider world) who are wholly incapable of reasoned discourse, because they have been taught that it’s much easier to just dismiss anything that contradicts their views (or points out factual or logical flaws in them) as just racist / paternalistic / bigoted / etc.

          (It’s actually fun for me to sometimes “debate” with those kids (see my TTAG reporting on the “Cocks not Glocks” protest at UT a few years ago for one example), as their worldview means they never learned even the most basic principles of rhetoric (which were developed by white men, so I guess they think they must be avoided). It’s thus a simple matter to tie them in knots.)

          It’s easy to just spew cut-and-paste talking points. See Debbie, Dacian, Albert, etc. On the other hand, learning something you don’t know (like legal procedure and how lawsuits actually work) and then assessing / adapting your arguments to account for this additional information, and being willing to admit that perhaps your original argument was flawed or needs to be adjusted in it (see, e.g., .40 Cal, Sam I Am, and many others here) requires actual thinking and reflection.

      • Counter-points: This money will allow the FPC and SAF lawsuits to proceed, blocking this bureaucratic over-reach of the BATFE for all, and possibly remove SBRs from the NFA as they are obviously common use.

      • LKB you must have gotten your law degree our of a Cracker Jack box. Any organization can bring a suit on behalf of their members.

        • I’ve been consistently saying that FPC and other organization like them have associational standing (which means they can sue on behalf of their *members* — which ain’t the entire country). Point to one place where I have not.

          And FYI, my law degree was from a tier 1 law school, where I graduated with honors and was an Articles Editor on the flagship law review, which was followed by a clerkship with a U.S. Court of Appeals judge. I’m AV rated by Martindale. I’m admitted to practice in Texas, seven federal districts, five federal courts of appeals, and the Supreme Court. I’ve tried cases where I obtained eight figure judgments for my clients, and have a national reputation in my field. I’ve published numerous articles on the law, including a column for the National Association of Scholars, lecture at colleges nationwide on legal issues, and have been interviewed as a legal commenter by major press outlets on three continents.

          Your legal credentials, sir?

        • LKB, Frist a “tier 1 law school” is not criteria for being a good or competent lawyer. So, you clerked for a Court of Appeals judge. My father was a law clerk for a NYS Supreme Court Justice and the decision he wrote over the initial objections of his Judge is the reason today that parochial school student are bused.
          Sounds to me like you are what is commonly termed as a “ambulance chaser”?
          My creds? 35 yrs in law enforcement, 10 as a police officer and 25 as a Correction Sergeant, I have seven convictions in “outside” court in which I obtained written confessions from the convict in felony assault cases with Miranda Warnings. Each time the confession were contested in “Huntly Hearings”, the confession was found to be voluntary and in accordance with the Constitution.
          I have made hundreds of arrests in which in each and every case the defendant was found guilty as charged. In civil matters, I have a record of 8 wins and zero loses including my last in which I won in US Tax Court. Not bad for a “layman” huh?
          Many lawyers I have met from “tier 1” law schools, were great with the books but had/have the common sense of an amoeba.

    • Six months prior I misplaced my work and after that I was blessed sufficient to falter upon a extraordinary site which truly spared me. I begun working for them online and in a brief time after I’ve begun averaging 15k a month… The finest thing was that cause I am not that computer smart all I required was a few essential writing aptitudes and web get to to begin.
      :
      ) AND Great Luckiness.:
      )
      HERE====)>>>
      https://paycash944.blogspot.com/

  2. I call it a reward to these organizations for their excellent work. Also a hell of a lot cheaper than an attorney if the f*cking ATF decides to darken my doorway. Yeah, would prefer that these lawsuits are not needed. But we live in the real, real f’d up world.

  3. the case for GOA in Texas also had the State of Texas as a plaintiff. The judge accepted one of the Texas complaints so they had standing, and the injunction also applies to all residents of Texas even if they are not members of GOA.

      • How America is Not Complying with the Pistol Brace Rule. Even When You Use the Correct Math.

    • ok a correction here…. the GOA suit also had the State of Texas as a plaintiff. Various lawyers said that the injunction also covered all residents of the state.

      Turns out that’s not correct. Although the injunction applies to Texas also it only applies to those employed by the State of Texas (Texas state employees even if they are not members of GOA) and not all residents of Texas.

      • Correct.

        It seems the batting average for guy you the keep posting videos from is pretty low.

        • its not that guy specifically, several lawyers said it applied to all residents of Texas.

  4. The ATF says there were 255,162 registrations during the amnesty period.

    The ATF estimates there are 3 – 7 million braced firearms.

    The congressional research service estimates there are 10 – 40 million braced firearms.

    If there are 3 million and 255,162 were registered during the amnesty period —- 8.5% were registered —- 100% – 8.5% = 91.5% who did not comply.

    If there are 10 million and 255,162 were registered during the amnesty period —- 2.55% were registered —- 100% – 2.55% = 97.45% who did not comply.

    So, based upon minimum estimates over 90% did not comply.

    • “So, based upon minimum estimates over 90% did not comply.”

      Well, the criminals already don’t comply in any city, no matter what color it is. And not even when the criminals are in the government, or in the .. ahem, ATF. Americans MUST be able to protect themselves from all dangers, foreign and especially domestic.

  5. ya think the ATF planned on having the case against them funded by ATF’s own unconstitutional action?

    but why not, the tax payers are footing the bill for that ATF unconstitutional action.

    • What if (big stretch coming here) Congress de-funded any pending legal battles the ATFE and really big Fires are starting? I know money is fungible. This pile can’t be used for that, but that pile can be used for this kind of thing.
      Could it work?

      • Yep, but it would take really specific language, and we can’t even get the stupid Republicans on board to revoke the latest ATF rule, plus it would require Biden to sign it into law.

        • funding control doesn’t need Bidens signature and its not a matter of passing a law to remove or control existing funding. All they need to do is shut it off, and Republicans control the committee that controls the ATF budget.

      • some Republicans in Congress are threatening to defund ATF, it just so happens the committee that controls their budget is Republican controlled.

  6. Isn’t this giving the government a private sector de facto registry?

    • they can’t legally get the membership lists. Theres a law against the government doing that, forget right now but that came up in another comment section for a recent article on this subject.

      • yeah SUUUUURE. Got bridge for you.

        Making a list and checking it thrice.

        If you didn’t fall for the BS fed “registry”/list, why would you sign up for an alternative list? Stick with the canoe/windy lake.

        • Yes, I’m pretty sure they can’t legally get the membership lists.

          BTW, as much as the ATF actions here were ‘criminal’ in nature this is not a criminal case. Its a civil case. If it were a criminal case, then maybe the ATF could come up with some reasoning for a subpoena IF they were the ones that bought charges. But this is a civil case, and its only enough, basically, to show the unconstitutional action will cause harm and the plaintiffs are likely to prevail on the merits of their case for the temp injunction and the court issued the injunction covering the members and the residents of the state of Texas.

          If ATF has a specific person or persons they will take criminal action against and the defense is membership covered by the injunction, they can demand the membership proof for those persons be given them but they can’t go on a ‘fishing expedition’ and get the membership list’s.

      • .40 – the bats can’t ‘legally’ maintain any sort of gun owner registry yet that hasn’t stopped them from ‘magically’ compiling a list of nearly a BILLION firearm transaction records. They freely admitted that here recently, makes ya wonder what other ‘records’ they have managed to acquire that we don’t know about. You can bet that anyone that has ever bought a firearm from an FFL is on some sort of list squirreled away somewhere – just in case they might ‘need’ that info some day.

        • criminals are gonna criminal – if they do something by other less legal or ‘edge’ means, if the government does it then its a matter of ‘interpretation’ – if you or I do it then its ‘illegal’.

    • some of us were already members before, as we already supported the work SAF, FPC, etc. whether or not we own firearms with pistol braces.

      others became members, I am sure, as simply part of making a donation showing their approbation of the work being done and results achieved.

      so, no, it’s not a 1:1 between brace owners and SAF/FPC membership rolls, if that’s where you were going with this.

    • While I agree with .40 cal, If you use social media your information is recorded. Period! What comes in to play is whether or not it can be introduced in a legal proceeding.

  7. The government already had their butts handed to them by SCOTUS in the EPA case, basically, that its not constitutional for a government agency to create defacto law by rule/regulation making. And ATF did exactly that, usurped the authority of Congress by creating (defacto) law by rule making and its unconstitutional.

    So I’m not sure what the ATF could say if this gets to SCOTUS thats going to give them a win. Any guesses?

    I guess they could feign innocence and blame it on Everytown because they acting as a ‘consultant’ basically wrote this unconstitutional tyranny. (yes, that’s right… the comments did not do squat and were not even considered. Instead of considering public comment like they are suppose to do all the ATF considered was what Everytown wanted. Yes, our government is compromised thanks to Joe Biden.. but we already knew that. The Chinese will probably be the next ‘consultant’ if Joe and Hunter can work out the price.)

    • GCA68 and NFA are also Unconstitutional under Bruin but I have not seen that action yet.

  8. I seem to be covered by this as a Texan, a member of the GOA, and a member of the SAF. The funny things is I’m not likely to ever want a brace. I don’t own one and I might not ever get one.

    But I’m glad to see this happen anyway.

  9. The Day the nfa is repealed, it will be like Christmas, 4th of July, New Years and a birthday, I’m going to wear out sooo many hacksaw blades hahaha

  10. My understanding is the orders came from Biden. In a way I felt slightly sorry for Dettlebach’s stammering and essentially lying under oath, but not very sorry. I once had to testify to a much lower powered, in my case, subcommittee my boss pretty much gave me orders on what to say, so I did and no less than Alan Simpson R-Wyoming knew something about the subject and called me on it. I, personally, fully agreed with him.

    The good part of this is that now it has been proven that SBRs and SBSs are not particularly dangerous and definitely not unusual and be the basis to have them removed from the NFA of 1934. In redefining the braced pistols as SBRs and SBSs they generated as many as forty million new ones. I understand a suit is already prepared and will be filed the day one of these decisions are handed down.

    • NFA is entirely built on the BS of the “Commissioner” determines. ILLEGAL/Improper Administrative state BS.

    • “My understanding is the orders came from Biden.”

      Your understanding is correct. Biden ordered the ATF, basically, to find ways to that would lead to an eventual ban on all firearms. The ‘lawyer arm’ of the anti-gun organization Everytown was bought in as an ‘consultant’ with Biden’s blessing, and they used the NFA since it was already established in law to create the ‘crack’ in the law by starting with something simple, a piece of plastic brace to establish precedent that the ATF could bring all firearms under the NFA by simply ‘redefining’.

      To do that they needed to ‘rewrite the actual law’ in a way that made it appear that ATF already had authority to do this. So they dodged into ‘ambiguous’ and made a few wording and interpretation changes to the actual law to do that so their ‘rule’ would appear legitimate and appear to match the law to effectively create ‘defacto’ law. All this too so they could bypass congress because congress is the only body that can create law and Biden wanted to rule by decree though executive order to ban guns.

      Think of the many times Biden has said that he was going to ban despite it being obvious that Congress was not going to pass a law that allowed such a complete ban and even if they did such a law would not pass constitutional muster. Well this is how he was going to do it, simply bypass congress and constitution with executive and presidential order/direction and rule by decree to do it a little at a time and the first step was giving the ATF the appearance of ‘legitimacy and authority’ to ‘legally’ simply ‘redefine’ what ever they wanted to but the precedent had to be set first and the simple thing of ‘legal accessory’ added to a firearm would magically make the firearm something else over which they could exert control as to if a person could or could not have it.

      This is not the first time Biden tried to ‘ban’ guns since he has been president. The first time was actually through a SCOTUS case called Caniglia v. Strom – Biden sent the DOJ in to intervene in that case in an attempt to have the ‘community car taking’ exception to the fourth amendment made ‘constitutional’ in that case. Had he been able to do that he would have been able to, with the stroke of a pen, declare all firearms a ‘national health hazard’ under existing ‘health laws’ and make them ‘illegal’ and subject to confiscation as ‘community care taking’ without warrant and thus a ‘ban’. In effect this was a monumental case along the lines of the victory in Bruen. SCOTUS unanimously upheld the Fourth Amendment and ruled for Caniglia. And even though the case was not actually about firearms, even though firearms were involved, but rather about the forth amendment and warrant-less searches/seizures, the SCOTUS ruling effectively shutting down Biden’s efforts.

      • Although Caniglia v. Strom was hailed by the gun community as a victory for firearm rights because firearms were involved it was not really about firearms and it was largely ignored by society outside the gun community.

        Had the ‘community caretaking’ exception been expanded as Biden wanted it, it would have let Biden infringe the 1st amendment, 4th amendment, 5th amendment and 14th amendment any time he wanted just by declaring by decree something was some kind of ‘threat’. In effect Biden would have been able to control our inherent constitutional rights, like the government in the U.K. and Europe control their ‘government granted rights’ of their citizens. As a simple basic example; Biden would have been able to declare a journalist was creating a ‘threat to the common good’ by writing dissenting opinion and have the journalist and their computers and their works seized without warrant or cause and sure maybe it would have worked out in the courts later and been overturned but the damage would have already been done and been irreparable.

        Think about whats happening with ‘red flag’ laws …. no due process already in most of them – but think about the government being able to have carte blanch anytime it wanted to ” ’cause we say its community care taking’ ” or ‘some other reason cause’ they say so and your person and property is seized without warrant or cause. The left wing and liberals calls this ‘reasonable’ and ‘common sense’ – our country founders called it tyranny and that’s exactly what it is and we fought a war, the revolutionary war, to rid ourselves of it and now stupid people have voted it back into office in the form of Joe Biden and idiots like dacian and Miner49er here at TTAG cry for it to happen.

        • The unconstitutional brace rule must be defeated, period. Its not really about firearms but rather about bringing us to the abyss of tyranny and throwing us in, not just gun owners but all Americans.

          If a precedent can be set that allows the government to control by bypassing congress by redefining with the stroke of a pen, that precedent can be applied at government desire to any of the inherent rights for anyone when ever they choose.

          This brace thing is not about firearms really when it comes down to it, and sure it involves firearms. But its really about what it actually is and what our founders warned against letting happen, and that is tyranny.

        • .40 cal,

          How would that, in any measurable way, be different than what he has already tried to do??? Selling off the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (established by Congress in 1975 with the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA)), claiming to “forgive” student loans (also first established by, then later nationalized by, Congress), mandating vaccines, etc., etc., et ad nauseum cetera?????

          The worshippers of government (yes, including the Deep State) have no problem with this – just ask MajorLiar and dacian the demented.

          Sorry, this has been a problem for years. Our current government does NOT function as it was originally designed. If the current functioning was objectively better? There would be a discussion to be had. Does it? Does ANYONE actually want to argue that our government today works “better” than it did in, say, 1970? Anybody? Bueller? Bueller??

          Some state and local governments have been trying to wrest back their intended roles – against FANATIC resistance from the Leftist/fascists/Dimocrats/Deep State (ah, but I repeat myself thrice).

        • @LampOfDiogenes

          Although what you bring up is valid, its really a discussion for another place and time in framing with the context of those things specifically and right now this is firearms realted. But, yes, you are correct in that its not really any different – tyrants are gonna tyrant when ever and where ever they can.

  11. The beautiful thing is that the influx of membership.dues will be used to fund more lawsuits against antigun laws and regulations.

  12. ok a correction here…. the GOA suit also had the State of Texas as a plaintiff. Various lawyers said that the injunction also covered all residents of the state.

    Turns out that’s not correct. Although the injunction applies to Texas also it only applies to those employed by the State of Texas (Texas state employees even if they are not members of GOA) and not all residents of Texas.

Comments are closed.