I’m not good at legalese. What’s the gist of that court document?
I’m not good at legalese. What’s the gist of that court document?
Nothing so needs reforming as other people's habits - Mark Twain
Tact is the knack of making a point without making an enemy / Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
Another preliminary injunction by the court, this time in regards to the lawsuit filed against the ATF by the NRA. ATF can't enforce its brace thing against the NRA members.Originally Posted by awp_101
Doesn't read posts longer than two paragraphs.
I thought there was a complete nationwide injunction already.
My posts only represent my personal opinion and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or official policies of any employer, past or present. Obvious spelling errors are likely the result of an iPhone keyboard.
Yup. And SAF injunction before that. I'm not smart enough to understand if, with the same outcome, those decisions use different reasoning. This one seemingly stated that ATF offering sbr stamps for no charge doesn't constitute appropriate solution. I don't know if other injunctions said it too.
Doesn't read posts longer than two paragraphs.
The court mentioned the nationwide stay currently in effect and which is currently being appealed to the Fifth Circuit. However, neither party raised that issue, so the court decided not to address it.
Having multiple injunctions in place until we have a final decision is not a bad thing. If one injunction is listed, those who are covered by more than one injunction still have the protection of the other injunctions unless and until they are lifted.
Any legal information I may post is general information, and is not legal advice. Such information may or may not apply to your specific situation. I am not your attorney unless an attorney-client relationship is separately and privately established.
Reply With Quote