Virginia laws
- Thread starter double
- Start date
Yeah the legislature in Alabama is poised to pass a bill banning "Glock switches." There is already a law banning full auto, federal and state. The democrats are trying to get it passed just to get to say they passed a gun law fo de chirrin. They are passing laws for things that already have laws on the books and they don't enforce them now. We have a house rep that helped get permitless carry passed and he was trying to get a bill passed out of the house that forbid banks and cc companies to keep a list of gun and ammo purchases--you know something that would violate our 10th amendment rights but NOOOOOOO they want to worry about making something illegal that is already illegal. The banking bill got sent back to committee.
Do y'all have anything like this double? It's kinda like a cross between having an attorney on retainer and " I had to shoot the sob" insurance. That might be something you would be interested in. I am thinking about putting all the Admins and Moderators into BamaCarry as a way for them to get this coverage. It's half price for BC members which is $75.00 @year. Me Linda Matthew all have it and I need to have my two daughters to get it.
www.selfdefensefund.net
Understanding Self-Defense Rights: What Can You Do When Facing an Unlawful Arrest?
You can avoid resisting arrest charges by politely complying with an officer’s requests, even if you feel the arrest is unjustified.
www.selfdefensefund.net
Yes there is a company here to get you lawyered up if anything goes south. I believe it is SDF. I thought about getting it and a buddy of mine has it. I just never looked into it closely. It's supposed to be worth it. I haven't heard anything but good with it. It might be something that would never be used but it would be worth it that ONE time. The "better to have it and not need it than not have it and need it". I could be interested.
They have several levels but the one that we have is for like a million dollars and it's the basic plan. I don't know about the trust thing.They came out with a silver and gold and platinum. The different levels cover all type of stuff but the basic plan covers your defense lawyer in the self defense case. I think the next level up is coverage that includes civil case. In Alabama we have a law that if you are found innocent in the criminal case you can't be sued in civil court. I don't know how it is in other states. The $75.00 for BamaCarry members is half of the basic coverage or maybe even a little less. I think the basic without BC membership is $175.00 might be $150.00. I'm not sure. Krp is a BC member so he can get it. If y'all want I'll take it out of the AGT account and make everyone members. It's only 20 dollars a year for BamaCarry membership. If all of y'all approve. I wish I could foot the bill on the SDF thing but maybe as soon as AGT is raking in the big bucks we can do that. Right now it's doing good to pay the power bill, but it's improving. If that pre 64 Winchester Tom found sells on the auction, it will pay the bills for the next six months and still get everyone membership in BC.
One might not need the trust situation in Va. anymore. There is an ATF form to fill out to get a suppressor in Va. It should be a federal thing verses a State thing as long as a State allows them. I don't mind getting involved with SDF. Just let me know what I need to do.
Sorry about talking about two different subjects here but I think I am about bat sh#$ crazy anymore. LOL Too much research the last couple of days.
Sorry about talking about two different subjects here but I think I am about bat sh#$ crazy anymore. LOL Too much research the last couple of days.
I'll let you know all the details about SDF as soon as Linda gets back. She is baby sitting this weekend. I'd hang on a bit before I did the trust thing for a suppressor. There has been a suit filed and I think a date set to here about the ATF making folks get a 200 dollar license to own one. The suit contends that a suppressor is not a firearm ( and it's not) so the ATF has no control or power to make any rules concerning them. It's funny that Great Britain has some of the strictest firearm laws in the world and you can buy a suppressor off the shelf in a drug store there. Their contention is that it is for hearing protection--and it is. These people over here have watched too many James Bond movies.
One does have to get a Federal stamp for one and it is $200. The trust I think has been eliminated. I am just not sure. I do know it is legal in Va. to own (buy) a suppressor. I also know a trust was involved at one time. I will talk to my FFL about this next week.
question......this is on the form 4473. I have filled this out many times (of course) and always wondered something........
b. Do you intend to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm listed on this form and any continuation sheet(s) in furtherance of any felony or other offense punishable by imprisonment for a term of more than one year, a Federal crime of terrorism, or a drug trafficking offense?
My question is, if one purchases a firearm, is he not supposed to be able to sell it until a year has passed.?
b. Do you intend to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm listed on this form and any continuation sheet(s) in furtherance of any felony or other offense punishable by imprisonment for a term of more than one year, a Federal crime of terrorism, or a drug trafficking offense?
My question is, if one purchases a firearm, is he not supposed to be able to sell it until a year has passed.?
Not in this case. They mean are you going to let someone ( sell or give to them) have it that intends to commit a felony or other offense that has a penalty of more than one year---as in the things listed -- a Federal crime of terrorism, or a drug trafficking offense. In other words are you buying or giving any of the guns on the form for a criminal.
Is there anything that says how long you must own a gun before selling or transferring? Would it matter if I bought a gun today and sold it tomorrow? It shouldn't be a problem but I wonder if that is what the ATF is trying to stop in making anyone that sells a firearm should have a FFL. As long as a transfer is done it shouldn't matter. But if you sold it to a friend or so called friend. I should be able to just give a firearm to my Son if I want to. (as long as he is legal to obtain one of course). Just curious.
That's what this new regulation is prohibiting. It says if you buy a firearm and sell it in less than a year then you will be considered "in the business." It also says that you don't have to make any money or even get any money for the gun ( swapped it for a set of tires) to be in the business. If you give the gun to your son or nephew or anybody in less than a year you will be considered "in the business." The damn thing goes into effect May 20th unless this suit that all the AG's have filed can get an injunction to stop it until it can come to court. So far GOA, NAGR, and 28 attorney generals have filed suits but I haven't heard if they have made any progress. Notice who is absent from the suit? Good ole Negotiate Rights Away, the NRA.
The one year thing applies to FFL's now. If I buy a gun from AGT then I have to wait until a calendar year has passed before I can sell it unless I put it back into the A&D book and run a 4473 on the person buying it. This prevents FFL's from purchasing a gun and selling it as a private sale without running a 4473 on the buyer.
The one year thing applies to FFL's now. If I buy a gun from AGT then I have to wait until a calendar year has passed before I can sell it unless I put it back into the A&D book and run a 4473 on the person buying it. This prevents FFL's from purchasing a gun and selling it as a private sale without running a 4473 on the buyer.
double, here is what I was telling you about concerning the feds and the 'Make everyone a dealer" rule. This pertains to the bump stock that Trump waved his hand and created this over reach crap but the principal is the same. Drag it out until it's not relevant or catches the public eye and whether it is repealed or not we are stuck with the consequences.
Of all the regulatory priorities to have, pistol braces are about the last thing that should be on anyone’s list but here we are anyway. The Biden administration is currently litigating to keep an ATF rule prohibiting their use, but challenges to that ruling are keeping them alive.
So, are pistol braces legal? Here’s where things stand as of now.
The “pistol brace ban” announced by the ATF – aka the Jan 21, 2023 Final Rule published in the Federal Register – was challenged by multiple organizations and multiple plaintiffs, creating multiple court cases. Cases include Britto v. ATF, National Rifle Association v. ATF, Watterson v. ATF, Texas Gun Rights v. ATF, Second Amendment Foundation v. ATF and Mock v. Garland. Each challenged the brace ban on similar grounds, namely that the Final Rule is beyond the pale of the ATF and that it would irreparable harm the rights of some plaintiffs and do irreparable harm to others.
Every gun rights advocacy group you can name is either a co-plaintiff or is the plaintiff. Mock was joined by the Firearms Policy Coalition, Texas was joined by the Gun Owners of America, and of course the SAF and the NRA litigated on their own.
All suits were filed in federal court in Texas, which was a smart choice given that the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers Texas) is one of the friendlier appellate courts to Second Amendment rights.
Initial suits were filed in the first quarter of 2023.
So…what were the results?
Results Of Pistol Brace Court Cases To Date Include A National Injunction
So far, there aren’t any actual decisions. Oh, there were lawsuits…but everything you’ve seen in the news are motions for injunctive relief (i.e. injunctions) while the suits are decided. You won’t see a decision for some time.
Federal court motions for injunctions were a mixed bag. Mock v. Garland was denied but granted a preliminary injunction – which is basically “we’ll give this to you for a little bit, but we don’t think you’ll win” – and Watterson was flatly denied.
The first signs of the tide turning toward the positive was in August of 2023. Counsel in Mock appealed to the Fifth District Court of Appeals, who handed down a decision granting an injunction until the court case is fully settled.
The decision in Mock granted injunctive relief to the plaintiffs, which included the individually named plaintiffs, Maxim Defense and the Firearms Policy Coalition. In other words, as of that month, two dudes out in Texas, a brace company and all FPC members were exempt from the brace ban.
In Texas v. ATF, the court likewise granted an injunction for Texans and Gun Owners of America members
The Second Amendment Foundation – and co-plaintiff Rainier Arms – case was initially successful in enjoining the ATF from enforcing the rule against Rainier Arms and SAF members in July of 2023 by means of a stay pending the outcome of Mock. The plaintiffs filed for a further injunction, asking for a national injunction but were unsuccessful.
The NRA was also successful in gaining an injunction for the sake of its members as well.
However, a national injunction for everyone was granted in Britto, where the rule was stayed in its entirety.
So…where do we stand? Currently, the ATF is enjoined from enforcing the rule. When will the final ruling, deciding the legality of pistol braces once and for all, finally come?
Nobody knows. Cases like this can drag on for years. It might happen by the time the next presidential term is almost over, whomever may occupy the White House at that point.
Where The Pistol Brace Ban Fails
You can argue principles all you like; court cases are decided on legal merits. In other words, there has to be a sufficient number of laws and court cases on the books that back up a legal assertion.
In these cases, the plaintiffs have all asserted similar things. Namely, A.) the ATF goes too far in interpreting the Gun Control Act in this manner, and B.) that it’s improper that they be allowed that much leeway in interpreting statutes to begin with.
That comes down to two boundaries of federal agencies. First is what’s called Delegation of Powers, and second the Logical Outgrowth Test of the Administrative Procedures Act.
Delegation of powers is a constitutional boundary, where Congress and the President can only delegate to federal agencies what they are explicitly allowed to. That includes things like coin money, regulate commerce, establish a Post Office and a few other things.
Making such a leap to include a firearm accessory rather than a type of firearm – after all, the Gun Control Act makes no mention of accessories besides suppressors – is certainly beyond the scope of what the ATF is permitted to do, as that would be the purview of the judiciary to define those boundaries.
Then we have the Logical Outgrowth Test. The APA essentially puts up guard rails for federal agencies, the short version of which is that what they decide has to closely follow the law that the agency enforces. For instance, if a new addition to the national tax code puts an excise tax on luxury yachts, it doesn’t follow to levy that same tax on jon boats.
These are the grounds that the courts have thus far ruled against the ATF on in all cases, as well as considering irreparable harm, as there is no recourse available to the plaintiffs.
So…for now…the ATF can’t enforce the rule. Whether the rule is stricken from the books? That remains to be seen. Surely there have to be some larger enforcement priorities than pistol braces…but if laws were required to make sense, there probably wouldn’t be as many of them.
Of all the regulatory priorities to have, pistol braces are about the last thing that should be on anyone’s list but here we are anyway. The Biden administration is currently litigating to keep an ATF rule prohibiting their use, but challenges to that ruling are keeping them alive.
So, are pistol braces legal? Here’s where things stand as of now.
The “pistol brace ban” announced by the ATF – aka the Jan 21, 2023 Final Rule published in the Federal Register – was challenged by multiple organizations and multiple plaintiffs, creating multiple court cases. Cases include Britto v. ATF, National Rifle Association v. ATF, Watterson v. ATF, Texas Gun Rights v. ATF, Second Amendment Foundation v. ATF and Mock v. Garland. Each challenged the brace ban on similar grounds, namely that the Final Rule is beyond the pale of the ATF and that it would irreparable harm the rights of some plaintiffs and do irreparable harm to others.
Every gun rights advocacy group you can name is either a co-plaintiff or is the plaintiff. Mock was joined by the Firearms Policy Coalition, Texas was joined by the Gun Owners of America, and of course the SAF and the NRA litigated on their own.
All suits were filed in federal court in Texas, which was a smart choice given that the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers Texas) is one of the friendlier appellate courts to Second Amendment rights.
Initial suits were filed in the first quarter of 2023.
So…what were the results?
Results Of Pistol Brace Court Cases To Date Include A National Injunction
So far, there aren’t any actual decisions. Oh, there were lawsuits…but everything you’ve seen in the news are motions for injunctive relief (i.e. injunctions) while the suits are decided. You won’t see a decision for some time.
Federal court motions for injunctions were a mixed bag. Mock v. Garland was denied but granted a preliminary injunction – which is basically “we’ll give this to you for a little bit, but we don’t think you’ll win” – and Watterson was flatly denied.
The first signs of the tide turning toward the positive was in August of 2023. Counsel in Mock appealed to the Fifth District Court of Appeals, who handed down a decision granting an injunction until the court case is fully settled.
The decision in Mock granted injunctive relief to the plaintiffs, which included the individually named plaintiffs, Maxim Defense and the Firearms Policy Coalition. In other words, as of that month, two dudes out in Texas, a brace company and all FPC members were exempt from the brace ban.
In Texas v. ATF, the court likewise granted an injunction for Texans and Gun Owners of America members
The Second Amendment Foundation – and co-plaintiff Rainier Arms – case was initially successful in enjoining the ATF from enforcing the rule against Rainier Arms and SAF members in July of 2023 by means of a stay pending the outcome of Mock. The plaintiffs filed for a further injunction, asking for a national injunction but were unsuccessful.
The NRA was also successful in gaining an injunction for the sake of its members as well.
However, a national injunction for everyone was granted in Britto, where the rule was stayed in its entirety.
So…where do we stand? Currently, the ATF is enjoined from enforcing the rule. When will the final ruling, deciding the legality of pistol braces once and for all, finally come?
Nobody knows. Cases like this can drag on for years. It might happen by the time the next presidential term is almost over, whomever may occupy the White House at that point.
Where The Pistol Brace Ban Fails
You can argue principles all you like; court cases are decided on legal merits. In other words, there has to be a sufficient number of laws and court cases on the books that back up a legal assertion.
In these cases, the plaintiffs have all asserted similar things. Namely, A.) the ATF goes too far in interpreting the Gun Control Act in this manner, and B.) that it’s improper that they be allowed that much leeway in interpreting statutes to begin with.
That comes down to two boundaries of federal agencies. First is what’s called Delegation of Powers, and second the Logical Outgrowth Test of the Administrative Procedures Act.
Delegation of powers is a constitutional boundary, where Congress and the President can only delegate to federal agencies what they are explicitly allowed to. That includes things like coin money, regulate commerce, establish a Post Office and a few other things.
Making such a leap to include a firearm accessory rather than a type of firearm – after all, the Gun Control Act makes no mention of accessories besides suppressors – is certainly beyond the scope of what the ATF is permitted to do, as that would be the purview of the judiciary to define those boundaries.
Then we have the Logical Outgrowth Test. The APA essentially puts up guard rails for federal agencies, the short version of which is that what they decide has to closely follow the law that the agency enforces. For instance, if a new addition to the national tax code puts an excise tax on luxury yachts, it doesn’t follow to levy that same tax on jon boats.
These are the grounds that the courts have thus far ruled against the ATF on in all cases, as well as considering irreparable harm, as there is no recourse available to the plaintiffs.
So…for now…the ATF can’t enforce the rule. Whether the rule is stricken from the books? That remains to be seen. Surely there have to be some larger enforcement priorities than pistol braces…but if laws were required to make sense, there probably wouldn’t be as many of them.
As far as bumpstocks.......whatever. The only reason Trump did that was to shut the anti gun crowd up after the Las Vegas shooter. However, it's just another brick in the wall as far as gun control. One brick at a time and all of a sudden a house is built and finished. I suspect that most people don't even think about bumpstocks anymore and as time goes on they get complacent to the extent of acceptance. I imagine that is what the ATF is going to do with a lot of gun issues knowing the issues will be hung up in courts and let the complacency and slow acceptance incur. The gun advocacy groups need to keep these issues out in the open and keep them noticeable to the general public. That might be a catch 22 however, so what do you do? Keep up with it all yourself I guess.
