Search My Articles
Get Notified of New Posts
ContactThe Law Office of John Pierce, Esq.
PO Box 16309
Bristol, VA 24209
Office: (276) 206-9615
Fax: (703) 890-2485
Quick Links► I Want a Virginia NFA Trust
► Next steps once I have my trust
► Documents Needed For eForm 1
► Moving Items Indiv to Trust
► Moving with an NFA trust
► Flying With a Suppressor
► Engraving your NFA items
► Who is my CLEO?
► NFA Processing Times
► EFT Fingerprinting for eForms
► Guide to the paper Form 1
► Guide to the paper Form 4
► ATF eForms System
“John represented me at my hearing in Fairfax County Circuit Court for my Petition for Restoration of Firearms Rights. My case was a bit complex and it incorporated some new legislation that John was very educated on. The legislation was so new that the Commonwealth’s Attorney and the Judge did not have any knowledge of it. John’s actions in the courtroom to bring the new legislation to the attention of the court were astonishing and brilliant; even bringing a smile to the Judge and pat on the back from a fellow attorney after the hearing.
John’s flat rate pricing for representation is amazingly affordable. He is true to his word, communicates through out the entire process and works diligently to represent you. I highly recommend John Pierce.” - Shawn
“I contacted John via email regarding trust and estate work that I needed and questions that I had. He called me that same day, walked me through the process, took adequate time and was very patient in responding to my questions. He is very down to earth and professional. I was astounded as I found he was on travel, yet he took the time to personally contact me. He was very responsive in following up with the documents that I needed. I am extremely pleased and appreciative of the time he took with me and his outstanding level of service. I've worked with a number of attorneys in my profession and John exceeds the standards that I am accustomed to. I highly recommend him.” - Ron
Getting up to speed on the arm brace rule (2021R-08F)
Posted in 2021R-08F, Administrative Law, AR Pistols, Arm Brace, ATF, ATF Ruling, BATFE, eForms, Form 1, NFA Trusts, Regulatory Rulemaking, SBR, Short Barreled Rifles, Stabilizing Brace, Tax Stamp Comments Off on Getting up to speed on the arm brace rule (2021R-08F)
Texas Federal District Court grants second LIMITED preliminary injunction against arm brace rule
Almost all of the discussion over the last week regarding the Arm Brace rule has concerned the preliminary injunction granted by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Mock v. Garland.
However, there are a number of other cases litigating the same issue with different plaintiffs. One such case is SAF et. al. v. BATFE, et. al.. This case is currently before United States District Judge Jane L. Boyle of the Northern District of Texas. On Thursday, Judge Boyle, citing the Fifth Circuit ruling, also granted a preliminary injunction limited to the plaintiffs in the SAF case (see below for the full order).
You may have read my article from earlier today concerning the clarification order issued by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in the Mock case, clarifying the scope of the preliminary injunction. While we do not have such a clarification from Judge Boyle, her ruling seems to indicate that she intends the plaintiffs in SAF to enjoy the same protections that those in Mock were afforded.
And, as I have repeatedly noted in my other articles, those not thusly protected still need to comply in some fashion before the May 31st deadline.
Posted in 2021R-08F, 2A, Administrative Law, Arm Brace, ATF, ATF Ruling, BATFE, Court Rulings, Federal Court, Fifth Circuit, NFA Trusts, Regulatory Rulemaking Comments Off on Texas Federal District Court grants second LIMITED preliminary injunction against arm brace rule
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals clarifies the scope of their preliminary injunction against arm brace rule
Earlier this week, I wrote a brief article about the Fifth Circuit granting a limited preliminary injunction against implementation of the ATF Arm Brace Rule (2021R-08F).
Since then, I have been asked the same two questions repeatedly by clients who wish to know what this means for them. Those questions are:
- Does this preliminary injunction apply only to plaintiffs located in the Fifth Circuit (Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi) or does it apply to plaintiffs regardless of where they are located in the country?
- If I join FPC (one of the plaintiffs in the case) now, will I be afforded the same protection as those that were members at the commencement of the litigation?
Apparently the plaintiffs had been fielding the same questions, because they filed a Motion for Clarification asking the court to specifically lay out the scope of those protected by the preliminary injunction.
Over the objection of the ATF, the court granted the motion and issued an order containing the requested clarification (see below for the full order).
The salient points are:
- This is not a ‘nationwide injunction‘ as that term is used in the legal sense (not the geographic one), meaning it does not bind the federal government in its relations with nonparties.
- However, they made it clear that it does protect those “customers and members whose interests Plaintiffs Maxim Defense and Firearms Policy Coalition (‘FPC’) have represented since day one of this litigation,” regardless of where they are located.
Notice the part that I bolded above. This means that, anyone who can document the fact that they were a member of FPC at the time to the commencement of the suit are protected. Those who joined afterwards are not.
Those who are customers of Maxim Defense are similarly protected as to the items they purchased from Maxim Defense. Whether the injunction can be read to include other arm-brace equipped items those persons might possess was not a question answered by the court. Out of an abundance of caution, and lacking further clarification from the court, I would advise my clients to assume those items are not protected.
So back to the question at hand. What does that mean for those who are still not protected in this case? As I said in my earlier article, while this is a potentially promising step, it is only one of many victories that will have to occur if the rule is to have a chance of being overturned. In the meantime, you still need to comply in some fashion before the May 31st deadline.
Posted in 2021R-08F, 2A, Administrative Law, Arm Brace, ATF, ATF Ruling, BATFE, Court Rulings, Federal Court, Fifth Circuit, NFA Trusts, Regulatory Rulemaking Comments Off on Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals clarifies the scope of their preliminary injunction against arm brace rule
Some examiners are now allowing corrections on eForm submissions
One of the FFLs I deal with frequently has not yet adopted the eForms system because of the fact that paper applications offer the chance of a correction letter, whereas an error on a submitted eForm would result in a denial and a requirement for a complete resubmission.
However, that may be changing, at least where some examiners are concerned.
Several members of the NFA group on Reddit have shared images of emails from examiners allowing documents (such as the Form 23) to be corrected via the eForms system rather than disapproving the entire application and forcing it to be resubmitted.
I do not know yet if this is limited to specific examiners or reflects a policy change for the entire agency. Regardless, those who have submitted eForm applications should watch their emails closely since the emails that have been shared so far seem to limit the opportunity for correction to a 48-hour period.
Posted in eForms, NFA Trusts Comments Off on Some examiners are now allowing corrections on eForm submissions
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals grants LIMITED preliminary injunction against arm brace rule
Earlier today, in a per curiam decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted a limited preliminary injunction in the case of Mock v. Garland. If you recall, this is the same case where a preliminary injunction was denied at the District Court level, prompting this appeal.
This is one of many cases across the country challenging the ATF Arm Brace Rule (2021R-08F) which went into effect on January 31, 2023. This preliminary injunction is timely given that the amnesty period provided for in the final rule is set to expire on May 31, 2023.
In the brief order, shown below, the court orders that oral arguments in the case be expedited to the next available date and grants the preliminary injunction, but only as to the plaintiffs in the case, and only pending the outcome of the appeal.
So what does that mean for those who are not plaintiffs in this case? While a potentially promising step, it is only one of many victories that will have to occur if the rule is to have a chance of being overturned. In the meantime, you still need to comply in some fashion before the May 31st deadline.
Posted in 2021R-08F, 2A, Administrative Law, Arm Brace, ATF, ATF Ruling, BATFE, Court Rulings, Federal Court, Fifth Circuit, NFA Trusts, Regulatory Rulemaking Comments Off on Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals grants LIMITED preliminary injunction against arm brace rule