Federal Judge Humiliates ATF Over Pistol Brace Ban

แชร์
ฝัง
  • เผยแพร่เมื่อ 25 ต.ค. 2024

ความคิดเห็น • 278

  • @Username18981
    @Username18981 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +87

    If the ATF calls everything a SBR, when does the NFA get challenged under common use?

    • @sinisterthoughts2896
      @sinisterthoughts2896 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +3

      Solid point

    • @matthewd.1805
      @matthewd.1805 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

      Damn dude... you nailed it

    • @thediddy8117
      @thediddy8117 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

      It will now

    • @roflchopter11
      @roflchopter11 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Unfortunately, common use isn't a real test.

    • @arconomach
      @arconomach 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      That's the hope for all of us buying suppressors too.

  • @bm5298
    @bm5298 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +111

    $50 says not a single lawyer will ask for the word infringed to be defined

    • @PrayingPanda
      @PrayingPanda 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +25

      They shouldn't. They should *TELL* the court the definition is "hinder, obstruct, or destroy" which is what the word meant in 1791 and in 2024.

    • @annelarrybrunelle3570
      @annelarrybrunelle3570 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +6

      @@PrayingPanda Mark W. Smith has WELL explained this on his channel. SCOTUS has read his stuff.

    • @RyshusMojo1
      @RyshusMojo1 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +4

      Ain't taking that bet. Nope.

    • @anthonywilliams9334
      @anthonywilliams9334 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +3

      @@RyshusMojo1 Agreed. That’s a suckers bet.

    • @DDGVET4
      @DDGVET4 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      Even if they did they would say they didn't. They're lawyers.

  • @H.R.6688
    @H.R.6688 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +104

    If braces are stocks now doesn't that prove how stupid and pointless the sbr laws are considering the millions out there and nothing has happened even though nobody has paid that magical tax that somehow makes them less dangerous?

    • @Jason_556
      @Jason_556 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +10

      Exactly! I’ve always thought that and it should get SBRs thrown out of the NFA.

    • @BagelWithaG
      @BagelWithaG 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@H.R.6688 i agree friend but those who rule don't want tounderstand or be literate 😡

    • @PSUQDPICHQIEIWC
      @PSUQDPICHQIEIWC 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +8

      This was _never_ about public safety or anything bound by honest reasoning -- neither today, nor in 1934.

    • @sinisterthoughts2896
      @sinisterthoughts2896 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +6

      The same is true about Suppressors. It was never about safety, it was about control.

    • @H.R.6688
      @H.R.6688 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

      @@sinisterthoughts2896 yep. Several countries have laws requiring a suppressor. I was hoping the hearing protection act would have went somewhere, especially since government got in bed with the Healthcare industry.

  • @me2ontube
    @me2ontube 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +70

    That whole 16 inch rule makes about as much sense as the 6 foot rule some genius came up with concerning health not so long ago

    • @othernamesweretaken1871
      @othernamesweretaken1871 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +4

      It leaked that he arbitrarily made it up. There was no data at any point to indicate that number lead to a significant increase in safety.

    • @seenochasm7101
      @seenochasm7101 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      @@othernamesweretaken1871he stated in his own hearing that the number “just kind of stuck”

    • @me2ontube
      @me2ontube 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@seenochasm7101 nor does 1 or 2 inches increase safety in any way

    • @me2ontube
      @me2ontube 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@seenochasm7101 and if atf were honest ... guess what

    • @sinisterthoughts2896
      @sinisterthoughts2896 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

      ​​@@othernamesweretaken1871ergo arbitrary, just as the lengths were chosen in the NFA.

  • @TimeTraveler-r9h
    @TimeTraveler-r9h 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +43

    Governments almost always appeal a ruling against them. Why wouldn't they? They have unlimited funds called tax dollars to use.

    • @roflchopter11
      @roflchopter11 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

      They wouldn't if they know SCOTUS will side with their opponent and nationalize their loss. If they didn't appeal and whatever rule wasnt vacated nationwide, the ruling only governmens the circuit where they lost.

  • @kickblake
    @kickblake 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +21

    Here's the way this works out: The ATF doesn't want to give exact details on how to make a braced pistol BECAUSE...........the industry will make that, to a T, and sell it. So they just want to use the old "just trust us, we know what one looks like up close" to accomplish this. And even if this wasn't the ATF..........no agency should have that kind of completely black-box, subjective, authority.

    • @sinisterthoughts2896
      @sinisterthoughts2896 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

      Bingo. Add to that the chilling effect of them having the implied threat they draw that circle around you or your product if you displease them.

    • @KiraSlith
      @KiraSlith 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +4

      That's what happened with the design and production of the first American pistol braces around 2012. It was heavily publicized that they were designed with DIRECT assistance and approval of the ATF to produce a legal option, both in the arm wrap and flat "blade" styles, and now 12 years later they're trying to claim those same braces are illegal. There is definitely an entrapment case to be had, but that would require surviving a direct encounter with the ATF without "voluntarily" turning over the brace.

    • @kickblake
      @kickblake 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      @@KiraSlith It's even more sinister than that: they're not trying to claim those *braces* are illegal...they're trying to claim that everything else about the gun except the brace makes it an SBR/"illegal".

    • @greggbutkewicz5892
      @greggbutkewicz5892 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      You dare to qvestion Der Fuhrer?!!

  • @joemccarthy4270
    @joemccarthy4270 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +30

    It isn't funny because the targets are people and what the judge is indicating is that the ATF means to accuse people of crimes and then write new laws for the crimes that they want to destroy people with. That makes the ATF a racketeering crime syndicate not a law agency.

    • @BadRickey
      @BadRickey 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Well, they can't write new laws.
      They don't have the authority. They can write rules. screw them Damn Rules.

  • @UnfiItered
    @UnfiItered 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +30

    If brace are stock then the ATF had violated their own rules and that rule should be over turned. They knowingly told false information to get millions of people to violate their rule just so they can prosecute. Im pretty sure thats considered a entrapment.

    • @ecobasetech4558
      @ecobasetech4558 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      I think you have to have "standing" to use that argument which would require someone to actually be prosecuted.

  • @jeffgoodrich7628
    @jeffgoodrich7628 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +32

    BAN THE ATF!’

    • @RyshusMojo1
      @RyshusMojo1 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

      BAN THEM HARDER DADDY!

  • @g1942transient
    @g1942transient 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +40

    I don't like that my tax money goes to taking away my human rights.

  • @kirkboswell2575
    @kirkboswell2575 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +10

    If the ATF has enough money in its budget to fight these rulings through dozens of courts over years and years, then the ATF has WAY TOO MUCH money at its disposal. Way past time to cut the ATF budget.

  • @Silvercrypto-xk4zy
    @Silvercrypto-xk4zy 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +69

    it should be illegal for any agency to use tax money to fight against our God given constitutional right to bear arms, or any other right for that matter

    • @jongriffin2125
      @jongriffin2125 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      The right to bear arms is not a God given right.

    • @Omnonymous
      @Omnonymous 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +12

      @jongriffin2125 All of our rights are God given.
      The constitution is comprised of words.
      Words only work if you read all of them.

    • @othernamesweretaken1871
      @othernamesweretaken1871 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +3

      @@jongriffin2125okay dude

    • @sinisterthoughts2896
      @sinisterthoughts2896 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

      ​@@jongriffin2125 you should work on your reading comprehension. If you want to claim you don't believe in a God so be it, a rose by any other name. The constitution acknowledges that right derive from a higher authority than any government or society of man. The phrasing they used referred to God. So even if you don't have any God you venerate, the wording still says as much, therefore, "God given" is an accurate term when referring to the constitutions acknowledgement of rights, even if it be by semantics alone.

    • @sinisterthoughts2896
      @sinisterthoughts2896 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

      I like the sentiment, but they don't have profit margins,nand are only funded by taxes. And that argument could easily lead to many government functions to go defunct, which sounds fun, but really means something closer to a societal collapse. Maybe a limit on funds thst can be used, and a limit to appeals as well. Personally I'm not sure the government should be allowed appeals, since the courts are meant as a check to overreach, and what good is a check than can just be spammed until it breaks down somewhere?

  • @PrayingPanda
    @PrayingPanda 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +22

    "Shouldering by the barrel" 😂😂😂😂😂

    • @brianclassen5221
      @brianclassen5221 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      Tea out the nose. 🤣😂✌ Happy Feet!

    • @z0phi3l
      @z0phi3l 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

      I liked that one too

  • @JJ-vc2nk
    @JJ-vc2nk 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +16

    "Arbitrary and capricious" is a feature not a bug. Glad the judges noticed.

    • @victorpfendler3230
      @victorpfendler3230 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

      A feature inspired by the Chinese Communist Party.

    • @sinisterthoughts2896
      @sinisterthoughts2896 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      ​@victorpfendler3230 it goes far further back than that. Tyranny has been around since before the 20th century.

  • @Zulu55far
    @Zulu55far 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +5

    For a consecutive 10 years AFT said pistol braces were legal. SBR needs to be removed from NFA, as millions of braces sold proves they are not inherently dangerous at all.

  • @davestahl572
    @davestahl572 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +5

    These ATF court cases are like being stuck at a rail road crossing with ATF being the train. The train stops and sits there blocking your passage for 30 minutes, moves forwards a few cars, stops for 10 minutes, backs up a few cars, stops again and keeps doing this for an hour, all the while still blocking your passage to the other side. It is like a torture tactic. The worst part is that it is wasting a lot of taxpayer dollars for absolutely no good reason over unconstitutional bullshit that shouldn't be in existence, including everything surrounding the ATF and their senseless rules.

    • @cd0130
      @cd0130 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Yep.

  • @jamesvatter5729
    @jamesvatter5729 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +8

    Curtis adding "humiliates" to that caption makes it worth the wait! 😂

  • @LordVader407
    @LordVader407 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +20

    The only reason why this keeps happening is because we're going about it the wrong way. The only thing the government needs to be told is four words long.. Come and take it. Full stop.

    • @np4057
      @np4057 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

      They will come and take it though. There is power in numbers sure, but when they show up with 20 people and you are alone in your house you aren’t winning that fight. That’s how they’ll go about it. The government has done a tremendous job dividing the population through misinformation and we are now next to incapable of uniting against them as a formidable force

    • @TheRange7
      @TheRange7 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

      That's brilliant keyboard warrior. I'll pass on the internet tacticool tough guy sh*t and just comply. Who cares about a friggen bump stock? You mess with the ATF, you lose 100% of the time. Not rocket science.

    • @PSUQDPICHQIEIWC
      @PSUQDPICHQIEIWC 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

      Nah. They've been warned enough times.

    • @sinisterthoughts2896
      @sinisterthoughts2896 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

      I prefer "shall not be infringed" since that one has been there from out governments genesis and is written into the constitution. Meaning if anything has any weight, it's that.

    • @LordVader407
      @LordVader407 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@sinisterthoughts2896 it's abundantly clear at this point that your rights have no meaning to the federal government. Think about it. If you don't pay taxes they will send a goon squad to your house to murder you even though they print billions of dollars every year. I don't know how you believe that type of tyranny can be swayed.

  • @raymarchetta7551
    @raymarchetta7551 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    ATF: but why can’t we do this now and tell you why we did it later? 😅

  • @mikeh3084
    @mikeh3084 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +6

    Shouldn't all judges be pro 2a? They swore to it didn't they?

    • @sinisterthoughts2896
      @sinisterthoughts2896 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

      Yeah, funny how people have grown accustomed to that not being standard practice. Boiling a frog, I suppose.

  • @DavidHunter-d1s
    @DavidHunter-d1s 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +12

    FREE MATT HOOVER 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸

  • @p99guy
    @p99guy 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +13

    I sure wish we could overturn the 1986 Hughes amendment, and open up the NFA registry again. ( Gee thanks NRA…you chucked us under the bus)

    • @redacted_redacted_redacted
      @redacted_redacted_redacted 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +9

      They didn't get the moniker of Negotiating Rights Away for nothing

    • @imperfectlump6070
      @imperfectlump6070 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

      Get rid of the NFA altogether.

    • @p99guy
      @p99guy 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@imperfectlump6070 I agree, but kicking the register back open to new tranferables is a step in the right direction.

    • @imperfectlump6070
      @imperfectlump6070 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      @@p99guy I am unwilling to pay taxes on a right nor get on a list. Not that they don't have an illegal registry already.

  • @cliffmontagnoli1886
    @cliffmontagnoli1886 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    thanks for the information. Keep it coming. We’re are grateful.

  • @davidjernigan8161
    @davidjernigan8161 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +20

    It seems like the DOJ and ATF like getting kicked in the nuts.

    • @PBVader
      @PBVader 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

      Considering making an additional unscheduled donation in hopes of capturing a photo of their balzac casts.

    • @cas2985
      @cas2985 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +3

      @@davidjernigan8161 They are not particularly smart but they are devious as hell.

  • @chrish1585
    @chrish1585 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +15

    The hope is that Trump is reelected and can appoint a ton of other federal judges into the deep liberal circuit courts and lower to flip the balance back to the constitution. The other thing that MUST happen is that corrupt activist judges be removed, disbarred, and prosecuted for any criminal activity!! If the courts are corrupt, the only other option for we the people is the cartridge box...

    • @sinisterthoughts2896
      @sinisterthoughts2896 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Agreed on rogue judges, there is some appalling behavior from the bench on some accounts.

  • @Puma1Sunfire1
    @Puma1Sunfire1 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    ATF thinking it can win here is LITERALLY making my head play the John Johan Jameson laughing at Peter Parker meme

  • @deankirkpatrick7658
    @deankirkpatrick7658 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +5

    does it really matter? how long and how many lawsuits and this is still an issue? they will just create 10 more illegal rules - or even laws and then how many years and how much $ is spent to get our rights back - just to have 20 more passed that have to be fought. there needs to be criminal prosecutions for depravation of rights under the color of law. until that starts happening there is no repercussions for depravation of rights to just continue - losing rights for decades, losing millions in fines, fees and or lawsuits.

  • @ferebeefamily
    @ferebeefamily 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +3

    Thank you for the video.

  • @PumpkinKingXXIII
    @PumpkinKingXXIII 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +7

    It’s like that old saying is it porn or is it art thing. I know it when I see it. Is it a pistol or a sbr? ATF “I know it when I see it!”

    • @sinisterthoughts2896
      @sinisterthoughts2896 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Exactly

    • @Qingeaton
      @Qingeaton 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

      I like to look at the "vintage" photos channels. They show a lot of things and people I haven't seen. I go look up some of them. One glamour photo of a beautiful young woman, who looks very much like my daughter in law. I said "look at her, honey, doesn't she look like your daughter Rae?" Then I google who she was and up come nude photos, because she was actually a stripper back in the day. So, she was both art and porn, I guess.

  • @mysteriousoklahoma777
    @mysteriousoklahoma777 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +6

    ATF needs to accept SC ruling and stop

    • @NoOne-kp2gz
      @NoOne-kp2gz 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Even worse if you think about it, they're using our tax dollars to argue in court why they need to get more tax money and try and revoke rights that they don't have the authority to revoke.

  • @RustyShacklefardd
    @RustyShacklefardd 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +4

    Literally what difference does it make if my barrel is 2" or 20"? SBR laws are gay

  • @FreedomsLife1776
    @FreedomsLife1776 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +4

    First off: love the channel guidelines pop up hahah second: we already had a moment like this where a massive amount of “non registered SBRs” went out to the public via the influx of M1 Carbines. They did the appropriate action and changed the NFA to make them legal.
    That’s the correct answer now: completely remove SBRs from the NFA. It’s a ridiculous law made toothless since pistols exist and are the truly concealable firearm.

  • @OFallons
    @OFallons 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +4

    Once the Supreme Court rules it’s done, and done.

    • @gunsfugitivessecurity8357
      @gunsfugitivessecurity8357 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      Tell that to those behind enemy lines in California post Bruen, doesn’t change shit until there’s an enforcing/punishing act

  • @richardhansen342
    @richardhansen342 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    This is truly ridiculous any judge should be able to stop an executive agency from violating the peoples Rights, and it automatically goes Nation wide, Plus once they are slapped down the Government can not appeal.

  • @Car-Ramrod69
    @Car-Ramrod69 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    How’s many humiliations is this now? Can’t a judge force some kind of cease and desist order against these clowns?

  • @grantroper2511
    @grantroper2511 หลายเดือนก่อน

    I love it! A thorough judgement with well explained, humorous examples. We need more humor in the court system, in my humble opinion. The whole thing is way too uptight.

  • @steveninaz9576
    @steveninaz9576 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Thank you Sir

  • @douglassfwilson
    @douglassfwilson 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Nicely explained!

  • @f22cap2s2k
    @f22cap2s2k 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    It's time to completely repeal the NFA

  • @dreknows
    @dreknows 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +4

    Funny pistol is defined by atf as be Intended or designed be shot one handed but everyone use support hands when e shoot unless we're gangsters in juice 😂😂

    • @sinisterthoughts2896
      @sinisterthoughts2896 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

      A support hand is not necessary for the function of a hand gun, which is true. Funny enough though, there are rifles that can be used one handed pretty easily, but they aren't designed solely to operable via one hand. Now as you mentioned, the use of a support hand is common, and how is just using a second hand, or a cheek any different than using a shoulder? Which demonstrates that is indeed arbitrary and basically a load of BS.

  • @joelatkinson2080
    @joelatkinson2080 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Another great video!!!

  • @spikymikie
    @spikymikie 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    That is an EPIC response. Another brick in the wall to protect the 2nd.

  • @jjacksonjr2
    @jjacksonjr2 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    MAN I LOVE your opening statement!!! LoL

  • @TimothySmith-yh4fu
    @TimothySmith-yh4fu 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    Federal Agencies (ATF, FBI, FDA, NSA, IRS, etc.) are part of the executive branch not the legislative branch.
    They enforce laws, they can not legally/constitutionally make them.
    This shortcut just like legislation by gavel has not served us well.
    It took 2 constitutional amendments to make alcohol illegal then legal again but none for marijuana and other drugs.

  • @robertosantinni9656
    @robertosantinni9656 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    I thought the Supreme Court said pistol braces WERE legal?

  • @EndjdjDhjeje
    @EndjdjDhjeje 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    What if a state passes a law saying pistol braces are legal on pistols. Like the dea cant raid dispensarys in legal states and the atf cant take a pistol from a 18 Year old in states its legal.

  • @Chadh-e6h
    @Chadh-e6h 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +3

    ATF is reloading they're going to change the language in the law, you watch and see

    • @sinisterthoughts2896
      @sinisterthoughts2896 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

      The government always does. Animal farm all over again.

  • @tacticalrabbit308
    @tacticalrabbit308 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    I didn't know the atf could hit the broad side of a barn at 50 feet!

  • @Qingeaton
    @Qingeaton 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    As in so many other areas of the law, we need adjustments to err on the side of freedom.
    If the agency seeks to restrict rights, and loses a case, no appeal.
    If they seek to restrict rights and win, the people still get to appeal.
    The people have the benefit of the presumption of having the right and freedom,
    and taking it should be extremely burdensome to the government.

  • @scubasleeve3497
    @scubasleeve3497 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    So they didn't call out the rule as unconstitutional on it's face, they just ruled against the AFT "on a technicality". Basically if the AFT explains things better it's all good.

  • @itsapittie
    @itsapittie 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Wow! He really lit 'em up! 😂

  • @m.w.2401
    @m.w.2401 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Soon as they did the brace bs I put a stock on without their permission. Not sorry.

  • @ayougo
    @ayougo 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Santa’s making a list and he is checking it twice. ATF has been naughty not nice. Santa’s coming for you.

  • @charleswismiller3271
    @charleswismiller3271 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +4

    Waste more of the taxpayers money

  • @ronsorrentino6207
    @ronsorrentino6207 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Wait a minute. I’m confused. I’m definitely not a lawyer and I haven’t even recently stayed at a Holiday Inn Express.
    But how is it the ATF can put on a side show to back or bolster their stance/position, but, in a recent case that the NSSF just screwed us on, we couldn’t submit a study about how many magazines are in the hands of Americans that shows they’re widely commonly used and owned, because a study can’t take the stand yet as I said, the ATF can present a slideshow that also can’t take the stand and be questioned?
    Not sure if I explained that very well to make the point of where I’m confused but why is it we can’t and they get to?

  • @jda79
    @jda79 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +3

    He has appointed tons of pro 2a judges

    • @sinisterthoughts2896
      @sinisterthoughts2896 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Did he? Or did he approve tons of actual conservative judges, which means they are pro constitution in general? As in do they only focus on 2a, or is apart of their greater philosophy.

    • @rabidsbr
      @rabidsbr 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      ​@sinisterthoughts2896 Does this distinction matter? Conservative judges are originalists. That's a good thing.

  • @adamturnbull6157
    @adamturnbull6157 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Now it looks like your walls are tilting slightly to your right my left. I hope it was worth it to make the desk level. 😂

  • @marcofguzman3075
    @marcofguzman3075 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Exactly what they want

  • @lmbear
    @lmbear 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    The atf can return all the pistol braces that they confiscated too!!!!! Or pay for it.

  • @ericmoney4572
    @ericmoney4572 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Ah yes, the "Texas sharp shooter fallacy" applied in law...

  • @Blain5700
    @Blain5700 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    No, the ruling was based on the administrative side. Where the rule proposed for public comment was significantly different from the rule they ultimately wanted to pass. Courts rule on admin issues first. Then the constitutionality of a rule comes last. The atf can propose the same rule they did for public comment and then pass that rule of they wanted. Then someone could sue on 2A grounds.

  • @dannyo6699
    @dannyo6699 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    So at what point will penalties be applied to the ATF for violating the Constitution?

  • @armani_5.565
    @armani_5.565 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Outstanding

  • @fortheloveofnoise
    @fortheloveofnoise 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Just got something wonderful from PSA today. The 2nd Amendment shall not be "but not this particular gun"ed amymore! 😂 please...😅

  • @sedevri864
    @sedevri864 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Really glad there are some good honest judges out there willong to go to bat forour rights.

  • @jjacksonjr2
    @jjacksonjr2 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    I KNOW that I couldn't be a congressman or a judge with dealing with the aft!! I KNOW MY questioning and ruling would be MOSTLY beeped out and considered badgering. I feel sorry for the sensor person

  • @AncientGloom
    @AncientGloom 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +5

    I'm not saying anyone should just put stocks on their shorties, but if you did, I didn't see anything, I didn't hear anything, and I'm not going to say anything.

  • @2024MakeAmericaGreatAgain
    @2024MakeAmericaGreatAgain 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    It should be criminal for the ATF to continuously infringe upon the God given rights reconfirmed by the constitution.

  • @Tripsolo65
    @Tripsolo65 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    If everyone can’t see why the ATF needs to be done away with completely after seeing how they are operating, then get used to this because it’s never going to change.

  • @EugeneWorth
    @EugeneWorth 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Never gave up mine since I first bought five years ago

  • @MechanicalMercenary
    @MechanicalMercenary 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    Congratulations

  • @richb.4374
    @richb.4374 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    The ATF can play legal ping pong all they want....we still will not give them up and we still refuse to give up rights to appease their puppet masters...end of story.

  • @leesouth120
    @leesouth120 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Thought they were no longer allowed to pull bullshit out of their ass,and make it a rule or law.

  • @AscDrew
    @AscDrew 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Your hat's not level either! hahahaha

  • @doncraig3665
    @doncraig3665 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    got that right!

  • @AmieTennell
    @AmieTennell 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    The fact that the braces were atf legal since their inception is a bit of an issue.

  • @TheMcpvideo
    @TheMcpvideo 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Defund the ATF👎

  • @mako8091
    @mako8091 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    So when are we going after the NFA?

  • @akirx765
    @akirx765 10 วันที่ผ่านมา

    Abolish the ATF..

  • @bhhvvbvgyvbuvv
    @bhhvvbvgyvbuvv 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Oh you mean that law that i ignored ?

  • @cerahhaddix4806
    @cerahhaddix4806 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Any update on the vanderstok case?

  • @NCHeel
    @NCHeel 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    So trump isn't 100% 2A. What you going to do? Vote for Harriss/Walz and show him. Not vote at all. That will really get us somewhere. Here's the real problem. One side is all the guns or you get nothing from me. The other side is we hate guns and want them all gone but if you limit mag capacity you go our support.

  • @NavySooner
    @NavySooner 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    They can’t cherry pick an appeal

  • @2112user
    @2112user 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Sounds like the judge seen that the ATF did, walked the ATF over to the "pile of shit left on the living room floor" and procedded to rub the ATF's nose in it to ensure they got the point.
    Works for dogs, so lets see which is smarter.... because we all know what the next step is, should the dog do it again.

  • @zuriel1489
    @zuriel1489 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    So can I or cant I go to the range with my braced AR 15 pistol? Sorry I am confused.

    • @sinisterthoughts2896
      @sinisterthoughts2896 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      Yes, for now. Basically. It is vacated, which means not enforceable, but they are going back to get that changed, but until they win a case, they are still legal. I hope that clears it up.

    • @zuriel1489
      @zuriel1489 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@sinisterthoughts2896 thanks buddy!

  • @barkermjb
    @barkermjb 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Love it! 🇺🇸

  • @RyshusMojo1
    @RyshusMojo1 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    I no longer comply with tyrants. I have chosen my hill.

  • @lgroves336
    @lgroves336 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    what a joke... You cannnot humilate the ATF. They will keep doing just what they have been doing... They do NOT feel bad for trying to MAKE LAW.

  • @MF-hz6xx
    @MF-hz6xx 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    ATF did a pretty good job on their own after a decade of self inflicted confusion

  • @texpatriot8462
    @texpatriot8462 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    The atf will have a hard time getting a ruling from an ATF Friendly court. All cases need a plaintiff and a defendant. If the ATF is a plaintiff, who could they sue? Random citizen? Gun Rights Orgs? They are stuck with the courts chosen by plaintiffs 👍👍👍

  • @zer0tzer0
    @zer0tzer0 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    They have to do all these legal gymnastics because they're wrong. If their position wasn't fundamentally flawed from the beginning it would not be necessary. All gun laws are infringements.

  • @AlmightyRager95
    @AlmightyRager95 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    What purpose does the ATF serve in current day? You know, besides trying to act like a branch of government, which they're not?

  • @burbanpatriot6953
    @burbanpatriot6953 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    so i cant see the video but i can hear it, i can only see if it while scrubbing. i assume they are trying to block your content

  • @JeffWalk-q4r
    @JeffWalk-q4r 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Disband the att

    • @sinisterthoughts2896
      @sinisterthoughts2896 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

      I mean, they aren't great, but they provide necessary telecommunications services to many people. As bad as they are, I don't find the demonstrably worse than the other phone companies.

  • @nicz8005
    @nicz8005 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    They waited so long, because it’s all politics to this clown show of an administration.

  • @stickman-1
    @stickman-1 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    I know I'm sounding like a broken record, but US v Miller is the key. And United States v. Robinson, is the only challenge to the constitutionality of the NFA's inclusion of short barrel rifles. 16" really? That's arbitrary and capricious on it's face! Where is the reasoning? Logic? Data? They just picked a number. Also Miller (if anyone would ever read the damn case was REMANDED. It was not a final decision. The only reason Miller stands is that Miller was killed and he nor his lawyer never followed up. TODAY Robinson is following up. 90 years late, but it's the only one I'm aware of that is hacking the roots and not the branches.

  • @pgtmr2713
    @pgtmr2713 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    The atf like picking on the handicapped

  • @lukepippin4781
    @lukepippin4781 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Not sure why it would be debated that Trump appointed pro 2A judged 🤔 Some people haven’t been paying attention to the Supreme Court apparently.

  • @marcofguzman3075
    @marcofguzman3075 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    They definitely where waiting for more orders from the administration 😂but that's my opinion and we know how that goes 😉

  • @timwilliam8045
    @timwilliam8045 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Time is always on the govs side.