Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« Thoughts on Rahimi and on Range | Main | Steve Halbrook on Rahimi argument »

Fifth Circuit strikes down ATF's rule on receivers

Posted by David Hardy · 14 November 2023 03:54 PM

Another win for FPC!

6 Comments | Leave a comment

wrangler5 | November 16, 2023 9:03 AM | Reply

Hmmm: “An agency cannot label conduct lawful one day and felonious the next”. Sounds like a nice turn of phrase to include in an opinion striking down a new rule on forearm braces.

Hank Archer | November 16, 2023 9:39 AM | Reply

My goodness, the arrogance of the ATF:
'ATF explicitly disclaimed the need to explain how any of these factors would balance in practice: “It is not the purpose of the rule to provide guidance so that persons may structure transactions to avoid the requirements of the law.”'

FW | November 21, 2023 11:31 AM | Reply

ex post facto

Fyooz | November 24, 2023 9:36 AM | Reply

Hank: “It is not the purpose of the rule to provide guidance so that persons may structure transactions to meet the requirements of the law.”

Sounds so much better, no?

Hank Archer | November 25, 2023 11:33 AM | Reply

Fyooz - don't see any significant difference.

Fyooz | November 27, 2023 10:32 AM | Reply

Hank: that was sarcasm.

Leave a comment