National Association for Gun Rights v. Garland [FRT]

[Silence Dogood]

National Association for Gun Rights v. Garland
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH DIVISION
Judge: Reed C. O?Connor
4:23-cv-00830

07-23-24 ORDER: granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and denying Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. See order for details. Ordered by Judge Reed C. O'Connor on 7/23/2024.
>60 filing later. . .
08-31-23 ORDER: Before the Court is the parties' Joint Motion for Extension of Time (ECF No.37 ), filed on August 31, 2023. After due consideration, the Court finds the parties' proposed modifications to the briefing schedule to be appropriate. Therefore, the Court GRANTS the Joint Motion for Extension and ORDERS as follows: 1. Defendants shall file their response to the Motion for a Preliminary Injunction by September 8, 2023. 2. Plaintiffs shall file their reply in support of the Motion for a Preliminary Injunction by September 22, 2023. 3. By stipulation of the parties, the Court's temporary restraining order entered on August 30, 2023 (ECF No.36 ) shall expire on September 30, 2023 or on the date the Court issues its ruling on the preliminary injunction motion, whichever is earlier. (Ordered by Judge Reed C. O'Connor on 8/31/2023)
08-30-23 OPINION & ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' 17 MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER: The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order to preserve the status quo until September 27, 2023 or until such time that the Court rules on Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 22 ). The Court ORDERS that Defendants are ENJOINED from implementing or enforcing against Plaintiffs Carey, Speegle, and Wheeler, in any manner, the ATFs expanded definition of "machinegun" that this Court has determined is likely unlawful.
08-18-2023 ORDER: Before the Court is the parties' Joint Proposed Briefing Schedule (ECF No.25 ), filed on August 18, 2023. After due consideration, the Court finds the parties' proposed briefing schedule to be appropriate. Therefore, the Court GRANTS the Joint Proposed Briefing Schedule and ORDERS as follows:
1. Defendants shall file their response to the Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order by August 21, 2023.
2. Plaintiffs shall file their reply in support of the Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order by August 25, 2023.
3. Defendants shall file their response to the Motion for a Preliminary Injunction by September 5, 2023.
4. Plaintiffs shall file their reply in support of the Motion for a Preliminary Injunction by September 19, 2023.
08-15-2023 MOTION for Injunction Preliminary filed by Plaintiffs
08-14-2023 ORDER deferring ruling on17 Motion for TRO. The Court therefore ORDERS Plaintiffs to confer with Defendants and agree on a briefing schedule to address this motion. The parties are to file a joint notice outlining the agreed briefing schedule no later than August 18, 2023.
08-14-2023 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by Plaintiffs
08-09-2023 Complaint Filed

National Association for Gun Rights Info Page - Courtlistener Page - Pacermonitor Case Page

[Silence Dogood]

They are taking the APA route.

[flyer898]

Good luck and Godspeed. And they are in the 5th Circuit, which should help on the appeal, no matter the trial court result.

[Big Chudungus]

IANAL but....

"He also has statutory authority to prescribe rules and
regulations concerning firearms. See 18 U.S.C. ? 926; 26 U.S.C. ? 7801(a)(2); 28 U.S.C. ?
599A(c)(1); Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (Nov. 25, 2002" sounds like they are giving up a LOT of ground.

Shouldn't it be "He no authority to make laws, and any such statutes are an unConstitutional abandonment of responsibility by Congress and POTUS and SCOTUS, and certainly not laws in such direct violation of "infringed" as in not even around the FRINGES....however....if he did have such authority, blah, blah, blah".

That seems to be the way lawyers argue any other case, with only rare and meek pushback from any judges (fellow lawyers) who mostly delight in such shall we say "comprehensive" representation of client's interest. Ain't a lawyer who DOESN'T try and mention EVERY possible little thingy run risk of "malpractice" especially at the Judge level. Maybe during Jury Trial some lawyer might have some psychological game to run on certain non-lawyer Jury Members, and not go to certain areas.

Pretty sure in all the highly successful Left Wing agenda such as Abortion, Civil Rights, Illegal Aliens, Gay Marriage, etc they go straight to challenging previously decided SCOTUS issues, and don't concede anything or dance around the fringes hoping some Judge will read between the lines.

[TruOil]

The Supreme Court's abortion decision does not need to be challenged. All it concluded was that there is no right under the provisions of the Constitution guaranteeing a right to abortion. This decision does not preclude either Congress or individual states from passing laws (or state constitutional amendments) allowing for or guaranteeing a right to abortion.

[AlmostHeaven]

The Supreme Court's abortion decision does not need to be challenged. All it concluded was that there is no right under the provisions of the Constitution guaranteeing a right to abortion. This decision does not preclude either Congress or individual states from passing laws (or state constitutional amendments) allowing for or guaranteeing a right to abortion.

Personal views on the issue aside, the Constitution explicitly enumerates the right to keep and bear arms, while the text makes no mention whatsoever of matters related to abortion. The left ignores and rejects the plain text of the highest law of the land by nullifying the Second Amendment with gun control laws while simultaneously inventing entirely new "rights" wholecloth.

[Epaphroditus]

And in many states minors can get abortions without parental consent so as we are all in favor of equal protection and equal rights minors must be able to obtain firearms without parental consent.

[marcusrn]

All these young people are given M249 SAW when joining US Military at age 17. Why should civilian utes be any different? Unless of course if they use drugs daily and/or play non stop 1st shooter games.

[Silence Dogood]

Plaintiffs have filed motions for both a TRO and a PI. Judge has ordered a schedule for each side to argue against and in support of both. Reflected in OP.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

The Associated Press has had its attention caught... Are forced-reset triggers illegal machine guns? ATF and gun rights advocates at odds in court fights

...The forced-reset triggers so concerned the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives that it ordered the company making them to halt sales only months after they began in 2020, declaring the devices illegal machine guns...

The triggers are the latest rapid-fire gun accessories to draw scrutiny from government officials worried about mass shootings and police officer safety, joining bump stocks, which were banned by the Trump administration after the 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas that killed 60 people, and cheap parts called auto sears that can make a pistol fire as if it were fully automatic...

The lawsuit, being heard in federal court in Brooklyn, claims Rare Breed failed to get ATF approval before selling the devices and defrauded customers by telling them the triggers are legal. Rare Breed denies any wrongdoing.

Meanwhile, the National Association for Gun Rights sued the ATF in a federal court in Texas this month, challenging its classification of the FRT-15 as a machine gun. The suit was filed in the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the same district where the bump stock ban was struck down in January after other courts had upheld it.

Both the bump stock and forced-reset legal battles involve how to apply the National Firearms Act of 1934 - a law passed in part to try to curb gangland violence - as modified in 1968 and 1986...

On the firing range, guns equipped with either bump stocks or forced-reset triggers certainly look and sound like machine guns. In court filings, the ATF said testing on the FRT-15 triggers showed their rate of fire can meet or exceed that the military's M-16 machine gun, which can fire 700 to 970 rounds a minute.

But under the law, the key to whether a part turns a weapon into a machine gun isn't the rate of fire, but whether or not multiple rounds can be fired with a single pull of the trigger.

Rare Breed's owner, Kevin Maxwell, and its president, Lawrence DeMonico, both appeared in federal court in Brooklyn this month to argue their device is not a machine gun because it forces the trigger to return to the start position after each shot, so only one shot can be fired with a single "function" of the trigger...

The ATF has also been asking people who bought the forced-reset triggers to voluntarily turn them over to the agency...

As for forced-reset triggers, Spitzer said, "Why on earth would anybody want this thing? There seems to be ... two reasons: One is if you want to do a whole lot of damage out in society, which is a goal that no sane person would say is justifiable. And the other is because some people find this loads of fun."

Morrison, the judge in the Brooklyn case, is expected to decide in the months ahead whether to keep her freeze on Rare Breed's triggers in place while the legal dispute continues in her court. A trial date has yet to be set in the Texas case.

See? There only two reasons why someone would want one, to kill 'millions' or 'have fun;' i.e., there is no practical (read that 'legitimate') reason to own one. You will notice that such is an interpretive exercise based on perception by a bureaucratic agency and not a determination based on what the law actually says vs. how the device actually functions by our elected representatives.

I believe there's a name usually associated with that type of thing which is often held to be unconstitutional. Ummm... Underground... uhhh... Regulations or something like that.

[Silence Dogood]

Thanks TrappedInCalifornia.

With politi-critters like Joe and Gavin asking voters to support “common sense” bans while nearly every other nation on Earth has already severely disarmed its populations, every American gun owner should be keenly aware of the true motives and goals of the opposition. Empowered by that knowledge, American gun owners should unite to push the centerline of public discourse well off its present mark which is epitomized in that piece (“arms must be justified” ergo “why do you want to have that?” ergo “you cannot have it unless I understand your motive”) and back to “The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” PERIOD, ergo restrictions like NFA’34, GCA’68, FOPA’86, and all of California’s legislative swill (going back to even before the Mulford Act) are illegal, unconstitutional laws which must be stricken.

The hunter/sportsman vs. tactical divide that so plagued our movement during the 70s and 80s cannot be allowed to continue. It is this division that ultimately paving the way for FOPA/Hughes and then the Clinton era nationwide ban.

Sentiments of stigmatism toward bumpstocks, pistol braces, FRTs, Autokeycards, etc. and their owners should be rejected.

We must stand together loudly declaring our rights in unison. We cannot afford to be divided.

[AlmostHeaven]

Thankfully, in my lifetime, I have seen the prevalence of fudds diminish year by year as anti-gun legislators have increasingly made clear that after banning "tactical" military-style weapons, sporting guns come next. Additionally, due to the development of new calibers such as 6.8 SPC, 6.5 Grendel, .300 Blackout, and .350 Legend, the AR-15 platform has gained popularity among hunters in the 21st century to a degree unseen before the 2010s.

[Silence Dogood]

30AUG, judge granted TRO enjoining enforcement against Plaintiffs (doc. linked in OP).

[AlmostHeaven]

30AUG, judge granted TRO enjoining enforcement against Plaintiffs (doc. linked in OP).

I wish the court had granted an injunction against the ATF seizing forced reset triggers from existing owners. This constitutes the biggest practical threat to people as the litigation winds its way through the system.

[Silence Dogood]

31AUG, Scheduling ORDER:
1. Defendants shall file their response to the Motion for a Preliminary Injunction by September 8, 2023
2. Plaintiffs shall file their reply in support of the Motion for a Preliminary Injunction by September 22, 2023.
3. By stipulation of the parties, the Court's temporary restraining order entered on August 30, 2023 (ECF No.36 ) shall expire on September 30, 2023 or on the date the Court issues its ruling on the preliminary injunction motion, whichever is earlier.