LiveLife
Member
Update to NAGR v Garland (ATF Forced Reset Trigger ban) - https://nationalgunrights.org/resou...iles-lawsuit-to-end-atfs-illegal-trigger-ban/
On 8/10/23, National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) filed a lawsuit against ATF in Northern District of Texas federal court arguing ATF misclassified Forced Reset Triggers (FRT) as “machineguns” under the National Firearms Act of 1934.” (Same appellate circuit ruled earlier this year that bump stocks are not machine guns in Cargill v. Garland)
On 8/30/23, NAGR was granted a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) - https://www.nationalgunrights.org/r...restraining-order-in-lawsuit-against-the-atf/"
On 8/10/23, National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) filed a lawsuit against ATF in Northern District of Texas federal court arguing ATF misclassified Forced Reset Triggers (FRT) as “machineguns” under the National Firearms Act of 1934.” (Same appellate circuit ruled earlier this year that bump stocks are not machine guns in Cargill v. Garland)
On 8/30/23, NAGR was granted a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) - https://www.nationalgunrights.org/r...restraining-order-in-lawsuit-against-the-atf/"
The TRO preserves the status quo in the case until “either September 27, 2023 or such time that the Court rules on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 22), whichever is earlier,” according to the opinion handed down by the federal court in the Northern District of Texas - https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/byvrrkaonve/08302023trigger.pdf
NAGR argued 5th Circuit’s Cargill ruling (holding that bump stocks are not machine guns) should [also apply for FRT] and judge O’Connor agreed
- The Fifth Circuit’s recent analysis of the exact statutory language at issue here shows that Plaintiffs [NAGR] are very likely to succeed on the merits… Because FRTs do not enable a weapon to automatically fire multiple rounds with a single function of the trigger itself, the Court finds that FRTs most likely are not machineguns under Cargill’s reasoning. (Page 14)
- Similar to the government in Cargill, the Defendants here “offer[] nothing to overcome this plain reading” of the statutory language. When the ATF revised its definition of machinegun to state that a “single function of the trigger” is the same thing as “a single pull of the trigger and analogous motion,” its definition conflicts with the definition provided by the statute. (Page 14)
- Plaintiffs brought this suit under Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) to challenge the legality of the ATF’s broadened definition. (Page 2)
- Because Plaintiffs point to binding Fifth Circuit precedent that appears squarely dispositive of the issue in this case, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have carried their burden at this stage as to this factor and are entitled to a TRO. (Page 15)
- Plaintiffs have successfully demonstrated to the Court that they are entitled to a TRO. Having considered the arguments, evidence, and law, the Court holds that the relevant factors weigh in favor of GRANTING the TRO. Accordingly, the Court temporarily ENJOINS Defendants—along with their officers, agents, servants, and employees—from initiating criminal or civil enforcement actions against Plaintiffs Carey, Speegle, and Wheeler, in any manner, based on their current or prior possession of one or more FRTs. (Page 24)
- Plaintiffs request that the TRO remain in place until such time that the Court can rule on their imminent preliminary injunction motion. The Court construes this as a request for an extension and finds good cause to extend the TRO an additional fourteen days. Without this extension, the TRO would otherwise expire six days prior to when the Plaintiffs’ impending Motion for Preliminary Injunction ripens. (Page 26)
Last edited:
