Baby Steps

Quote of the Day

A Democratic-appointed judge recently barred a federal agency from enforcing a pistol brace rule for millions of members of the National Rifle Association (NRA) as the appeals process continues.

U.S. District Judge Sam Lindsay, who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton in 1998, sided with the gun rights group in a ruling handed down on Friday. Last year, the NRA filed a lawsuit against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), which argued that the agency’s measure introduced last year to reclassify the pistols equipped with braces as short-barreled rifles is unconstitutional.

Maura Zurick
April 2, 2024
Democrat Judge Exempts NRA Members From New Gun Rule (

It’s a rather small step, but it is a step in the right direction. And it sets a precedent nibbling on the NFA.

And just as important it was so obviously an infringement that a Democrat judge saw it as unconstitutional.


8 thoughts on “Baby Steps

  1. I don’t think it nibbles at the NFA, good thing though that would be.

    It does reinforce the separation of powers and takes an axe to the BATFE’s misappropriated legislative ability. In doing so, it reinforces the body of legal precedent that is rolling back legislative behaviors in the executive, across the board.

    But because it does the latter, it doesn’t touch on the NFA. If Congress had changed the wording of the statute, then we’d have to run straight at the NFA and its Constitutionality. A Clinton judge would much rather rule on separation of powers than undermine the NFA and the justification for other gun control/infringements. She won a minor victory by getting to choose which major defeat she had to suffer.

    It’s a step in the right direction that will tear it all down, but it’s not all the steps and it’s only certain steps.

    • Ya, it doesn’t nibble at the NFA.
      But the NFA should have been gone after over 80 years ago. And put down for the cerebral monster that it is.

    • True but separation of powers itself, is a good thing. The Founders designed that deliberately.

  2. How does one rule for just NRA members? On anything? As a judge of American jurisprudence?
    Only members of this certain car club can own Corvettes?
    The danger of allowing persons lacking reading comprehension skills, but heavy on politics is becoming obvious.
    And just another example of not holding their feet to the fire at “Shall not be infringed.”
    They need to be reminded that should they step outside 2A for politics. That same politics puts cruel and unusual punishment back on the table.

    • The judge can issue a stay or remedy applicable to parties to the suit. If NRA is plaintiff, NRA members get relief. If GOA or CCRKBA is plaintiff, they get relief. If 80% Lowers is prosecuted, their customers can get relief from enforcement.

      You have to have your case in front of a Hawaiian judge to get a ruling that immediately applies to the whole country and several alternate timelines/dimensions.

        • Only if they’re going to murder me because they suspect I have a pistol brace. Otherwise they’re going to be in a lot of trouble!

        • Better get an NRA membership for your dog. These days though SAF membership is a better choice.

Comments are closed.