Summary
➡ The text discusses a temporary injunction issued by judge Reed O’Connor, prohibiting the assertion that Firearm Recording Triggers (FRTS) are machine guns and preventing any related legal actions until the final judgement of the lawsuit. In the interim, only those included in the lawsuit or affiliated entities like NAGR are under protection, excluding those barred from owning firearms under 18 USC. 922 g.
Transcript
And Judge RIT O’Connor has issued a preliminary injunction against the ATF in the arena of force reset triggers. And some of the things he says is great, which is why I want to bring this to your attention. Here’s the case on the screen. This was the preliminary injunction that was issued by Judge RIT O’Connor and it’s again the National Association for Gun Rights et al. Versus Merrick garland, et al.
And it says before the court are plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction with brief in support and appendix filed on August 15 of 2023. The defendant’s response appendix and notice for manual filing of video exhibits filed September eigth of 2023 and the plaintiff’s reply filed September 22 of 2023. The court also heard evidence at an oral hearing on October 2 of 2023. Having considered the party’s arguments and applicable law, the court grants the plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction to preserve the status quo until a final decision on the merits is rendered.
Let’s go over some of the things Judge Rito Connor said in this. First, if you’re new to this case. Let’s get a quick background. On August 30 of 23, this court granted a temporary restraining order or TRO, to the individual plaintiffs, only finding that the ATF’s expanded definition of machine gun is likely unlawful. The TRO enjoined the defendants from implementing or enforcing in any civil or criminal matter the definition against the individual plaintiffs.
The TRO was narrow in scope, limiting temporary injunctive relief to current and former possessors of FRTS by the individual plaintiffs. The TRO was extended once by the court for good cause to avoid a gap between the temporary relief afforded to the individual plaintiffs and any subsequent preliminary injunction the court may award. The parties subsequently agreed to extend the TRO on two occasions and the TRO was due to expire on October 7.
One of the thing this case looked to do was to have the judge issue a preliminary injunction against the ATF, because the ATF is basically begging to charge people to go after people who have FRTS and charging them with a violation of the NFA by having non transferable machine guns. And this was interesting because in the case it actually came out how many times the ATF has charged people during this whole scenario, which was shocking because in the case in New York, the New York judge said the ATF is right in expanding their powers and expanding the definition.
Check this out says the plaintiffs also cite to examples of enforcement activity and search warrants carried out against other individual owners of force reset triggers, including new examples. Since the filing of this lawsuit. Specifically, at least three individuals are currently facing prosecution, and there have been 67 ATF seizures to date. Based on this record, defendants certainly appear to be chomping at the bit to seize FRTS. Further evidence of this is defendants refusal to disavow prosecuting the individual plaintiffs during the pendency of this case, the exact type of prosecutorial indecision that the Fifth Circuit has repeatedly held as more than enough to have standing.
Given this flurry of recent enforcement activity stemming from the same interpretation of the law that prescribes plaintiffs conduct here, and defendants refusal to guarantee that no action will be taken against the individual plaintiffs during pending disposition of this action, there is more than specter of enforcement sufficient to confer standing. Consequently, because the individual plaintiffs face a credible threat of civil or criminal prosecution for prior and current ownership of FRTS, the court finds that this constitutes more than a de minimis harm to confer standing to seek a preliminary injunction.
The judge also said the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of the case, and then he said this here plaintiffs contend that the ATS regulation broadening the machine gun definition is an arbitrary and capricious expansion of the agency’s authority. Plaintiffs are likely correct. Accordingly, the court concludes that plaintiffs have carried their burden at this stage to show that the expanded definition of machine gun likely exceeds the scope of ATF’s statutory authority.
Therefore, plaintiffs have satisfied arguably the most important of the four factors, and that’s being likely to succeed on the merits, the court does not begin its statutory analysis with a blank slate. Rather, the court is bound by the Fifth Circuit’s recent analysis in Cargill v. Garland concerning the exact statutory language at issue here. According to the Anbank Fifth Circuit, a weapon that qualifies as a machine gun under the NFA and GCA must be capable of, one, firing multiple rounds by a single function of the trigger and two, do so automatically.
In other words, the NFA unambiguously requires that a machine gun be capable of firing automatically once the trigger performs a single function. Cargill emphatically rejected the ATF’s interpretation of machine gun, referring to the bump stock rule. As Cargill explained, the ATF’s expanded definition was aimed at criminalizing the manufacturer’s sale and possession of bump stocks following the tragic Las Vegas shooting. Similar to FRTS, a bump stock is an accessory that attaches to a semiautomatic weapon to increase the rate of fire by harnessing the firearm’s natural recoil to quickly re engage the trigger.
A skilled shooter utilizing this bump firing technique can rapidly fire multiple rounds. Yet, despite this increase in firing speed, cargill determined that bump stocks are not machine guns because the device did not meet both elements of the statutory definition. One capable of firing multiple rounds by a single function of the trigger and two operate automatically. As the Fifth Circuit’s statutory interpretation makes clear, a single function of the trigger means what it says a single function of the trigger.
It does not mean a single pull by the shooter. In fact, the word pull is not found anywhere in the statutory definition. The only place pull exists is in the ATF’s broadened regulatory definition interpreting the statute. Applying Cargill’s holding here, FRTS do not fire multiple rounds with a single function of the trigger and do not qualify as machine guns. For each and every round fired, the trigger moves forward into its reset state and is depressed to release the hammer from its sear surface.
Because the operative mechanical function of the trigger is to release the hammer, that the trigger of an FRT equipped firearm functions for each shot fired, disqualifies it as a machine gun under the current statutory definition. Moreover, if all the shooter does is initially pull the trigger, the FRT equipped firearm will only fire one round. And if the shooter attempts to reset and hold the trigger in a fully depressed position so that the trigger cannot reset, the weapon will malfunction.
And I’ve done that myself at an event at Big Daddy Unlimited several years ago. I tried this. I quickly pulled the trigger to the rear. A round went off and I held it to the rear and only one round went off. That’s not what a machine gun is. Machine gun, if I hold it to the rear, will keep cycling. Obviously, FRTS are not machine guns. The parties agree that the trigger in an FRT equipped firearm releases the hammer for every shot.
By contrast, the autoceer in a fully automatic gun takes over to retain and release the hammer for all subsequent shots, so that its trigger functions only once in a string of automatic fire. Although an FRT equipped firearm contains a locking bar that prevents a subsequent trigger function until the weapon is safe to fire again, this is not the same as an auto sear. But unlike an autoser, the locking bar prevents firing until it is safe to do so again after unlocking the trigger.
Unlike a fully automatic weapons auto sear, the FRT’s locking bar does not alter the basic mechanical process where the trigger moves for every shot fired. Whether that movement occurs by the shooter applying rearward pressure to the weapon’s fore body in order to maintain the shooting mechanism for bump stocks, or by the hammer maintaining the shooting mechanism for FRTS, the fact remains that the trigger resets the hammer each time before the next shot can be fired.
Cargill explains that this is a separate function of the trigger. Like bump stocks, FRTS do not enable a weapon to automatically fire multiple rounds with a single function of the trigger itself. Conclusion for the foregoing reasons, the court grants plaintiffs motion for preliminary injunction 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 machine gun that this court has deemed is likely unlawful. One initiating or pursuing criminal prosecutions for possession of FRTS. Two initiating or pursuing civil proceedings for possessing, selling, or manufacturing FRTS based on the claim that FRTS are machine guns. Three initiating or pursuing criminal prosecutions for representing to the public of potential buyers and sellers that FRTS are not machine guns. Four initiating or pursuing civil actions for representing to the public of potential buyers and sellers that FRTS are not machine guns.
Five sending notice letters or other similar communications stating that FRTS are machine guns six, requesting voluntary surrender of FRTS to the government based on the claim that FRTS are machine guns seven, destroying any previously surrendered or seized FRTS and eight, otherwise interfering in the possession, sale, manufacture, transfer or exchange of FRTS. Based on the claim that FRTS are machine guns. 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 USC. 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. So order. On the 7th day of October, 2023, judge Reed O’Connor, US district court judge so judge O’Connor has again punched the ATF in the mouth, stopping them from enforcing their completely made up, unconstitutional, illegal definition, because they don’t have the ability to make law, nor can they change law.
So by them changing the definition of machine gun, they broke the law. So judge O’Connor has stopped enforcement of that said definition, and anybody who is a plaintiff in this case or a customer of a company named in this case, or a member of NAGR, those folks fall under the preliminary injunction, and that only lasts until the final decision on the merits of the case is made. So some good news if you are somebody who falls into that, don’t say it down below, because lord knows the ATF checks out my channel, and the last thing I want them to do is take note of who makes a comment saying that.
Now I can go use my FRT, or if you want to just troll the ATF, then by all means you should all go down there and say, my name is cooter, and I’m going to go play with my atfrt. I love y’all, I’ll see you on the next one. Congratulations to NAGR in this case, as well as rear retriggers. I will see you all on the next one.
Subscribe to the channel if you want to stay in the know. I’ll see you then take care. .
Author
