On October 7, 2023, Judge O’Connor in the Northern District of Texas granted an injunction against the ATF prohibiting it in certain means from enforcing its “force reset trigger” rule. See, National Association for Gun Rights, Inc., et al. v. Merrick Garland, et al. N. D. Texas, No. 4:23-cv-00830-O (October 7, 2023).
In 2018, ATF enacted a revised interpretation by it of the term “machinegun” which was established by Congress in the National Firearms Act in 1934. Specifically, ATF’s new and agency based definition included the following:
Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machine gun, and any combination of parts from which a machine gun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person. For purposes of this definition, the term “automatically” as it modifies “shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot,” means functioning as the result of a self-acting or selfregulating mechanism that allows the firing of multiple rounds through a single function of the trigger; and “single function of the trigger” means a single pull of the trigger and analogous motions. The term “machine gun” includes a bump-stocktype device, i.e., a device that allows a semi-automatic firearm to shoot more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger by harnessing the recoil energy of the semi-automatic firearm to which it is affixed so that the trigger resets and continues firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter.
27 C.F.R § 479.11 (2018)
One of the issues that a court has to consider when it is asked to issue a preliminary injunction, particularly against a federal agency, is whether the plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of its claim. The district court found in this matter that the Plaintiffs were likely to exceed on their claim that ATF’s “force reset trigger” rule, or the expansion of an existing agency rule, was arbitrary, capricious and unconstitutional. Although the court spends several pages in its opinion explaining why it concluded that the Plaintiffs would likely prove that ATF acted unconstitutionally, the following paragraph states the consequence of those findings:
Because Plaintiffs point to binding Fifth Circuit precedent that is squarely dispositive of the issue in this case, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have demonstrated, at this stage, a strong likelihood of success on the merits. That is, the ATF’s regulation is likely an arbitrary and capricious interpretation of the statutory definition of “machinegun” that exceeds the scope of the agency’s authority under 5 U.S.C. § 706. When such a determination is made, § 705 authorizes injunctive relief. And that relief should mirror the final remedy that would be proper for such a finding: the “agency action must be set aside if the action was ‘arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law’ or if the action failed to meet statutory, procedural, or constitutional requirements.” Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, 401 U.S. at 413–414 (1971) (citing 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)–(D)). Therefore, for the reasons discussed, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have carried their burden and are entitled to an injunction setting aside the ATF’s machinegun definition as applied to them.
NAGR v. Garland, pp. 30-31
After addressing the remaining factors that a court must consider when asked to issue a preliminary injunction, the Court concluded that it was appropriate to issue such an injunction. It is important to understand that the injunction is in the 5th Circuit and it applies only to the named parties. Two of the named parties are “organizational” parties and those include the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) which is a national membership based group. Members of that organization might be protected by this injunction even if they do not live in the 5th Circuit. The Court stated its injunction as follows:
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 22) to preserve the status quo until a final decision on the merits is rendered. The Court ORDERS that Defendants—along with their respective officers, agents, servants, and employees—are hereby ENJOINED from implementing or enforcing against the parties in this lawsuit, in any civil or criminal manner described below, the ATF’s expanded definition of “machinegun” that this Court has determined is likely unlawful:
NAGR v. Garland, pp. 44-45.
(1) Initiating or pursuing criminal prosecutions for possession of FRTs;
(2) Initiating or pursuing civil proceedings for possessing, selling, or manufacturing FRTs based on the claim that FRTs are machineguns;
(3) Initiating or pursuing criminal prosecutions for representing to the public of potential buyers and sellers that FRTs are not machineguns;
(4) Initiating or pursuing civil actions for representing to the public of potential buyers and sellers that FRTs are not machineguns;
(5) Sending “Notice Letters” or other similar communications stating that FRTs are machineguns;
(6) Requesting “voluntarily” surrender of FRTs to the government based on the claim that FRTs are machineguns;
(7) Destroying any previously surrendered or seized FRTs; and
(8) Otherwise interfering in the possession, sale, manufacture, transfer, or exchange of FRTs based on the claim that FRTs are machineguns.
This injunction covers the Individual Plaintiffs and their families, the Organizational Plaintiffs and their members, and the downstream customers of any commercial member of an Organizational Plaintiff. Furthermore, this injunctive relief shall not extend to any individual prohibited from possessing firearms under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). For those parties covered by this injunction, the relief shall take effect immediately and remain in effect pending the final disposition of this lawsuit. See 5 U.S.C. § 705. Finally, the Court waives the security requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c).96 See Kaepa, Inc. v. Achilles Corp., 76 F.3d 624, 628 (5th Cir. 1996) (holding that the district court has discretion to waive the security requirement).
Tennessee is part of the 6th federal circuit, not the 5th Circuit. This injunction will not prohibit ATF enforcement of the “force reset trigger” rule in the 6th Circuit unless perhaps the individual or entity might be covered under the “organizational” party provisions of the order.
One question every Tennessean that supports or believes in the Second Amendment should be asking at this time is why, once again, are those elected and appointed officials in Tennessee who are paid by taxpayers and who take oaths to defend the constitutionally protected rights of citizens – why are those individuals not doing so in cases of this significance? Why has the Tennessee Legislature not taken action to pass laws that expressly prohibit unconstitutional federal acts and actions in Tennessee – laws that have real teeth and not just aspirational “we did something” laws? Why is it that the Tennessee Attorney General is not defending the state and Tennesseans against unconstitutional actions by rogue federal agencies? Why is it that the battle to fight the federal government’s abuses and the ATF in particularly are coming from individuals, businesses and nonprofit organizations rather than with the full force and constitutional authority of the states under the concept of federalism and the 10th Amendment? Why?
Sorry, comments are closed for this post.