Hey, guys! Bright and early, we have a huge victory that came out of the Texas courts yesterday in the 5th, 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, and this is a big win for the National Association for Gun Rights, Texas Gun Rights, and four individuals, and this is the Forced Reset Triggers case by Rare Breed Triggers, because they’re members of NAGR, and Judge Reed O’Connor, who has given us many wins out of the 5th Circuit. Destroyed ATF, and it’s wonderful. First, thanks to support from folks like our friends at CMMG. This channel gets to still operate at its highest capacity, hopefully.

CMMG guys and gals are great folks. They have gone out and sued the ATF, and they love our Constitution. They make great tools, different colors, different lengths, different chamberings. CMMG, a wonderful company that’s been standing by this, not only this channel, but me and my family for years, and they’re awesome, not just because of that, but they’re awesome. Check them out, and if you happen to want anything like a tool, GNG10 will save you huge over there. Alright, let’s get into this case. This case has been ongoing for a while, and this comes as a result of 2018, when the ATF redefined machine gun after the Las Vegas shooting.

Remember, this is the bump stock issue that came out. And we know that the Supreme Court shredded that in the Cargill case that came out just about three weeks ago. In the Cargill decision, the Supreme Court said that the ATF violated its own ability, exceeded its authority, and bump stocks are not machine guns. Well, here we are with the forced reset trigger case, which the ATF used the exact same methodology to say that forced reset triggers are machine guns, and I’ve done many a video. I’ve shot these items at different events on ranges, and when you hold it to the rear, it doesn’t keep firing, which is the machine gun standard.

There’s two things based off of the congressional definition of machine gun. One, does it continue to cycle off of a single function of the trigger? And two, does it do it automatically? Bump stocks don’t operate automatically. A person has to utilize that recoil. Forced reset triggers don’t operate automatically. If you hold it all the way to the rear, it will only fire one shot, it will malfunction. You thus don’t meet the statutory definition, and Judge Reed O’Connor goes into how a forced reset trigger operates, how it actually, the reset is forced on each round that is fired.

The hammer has to be reset each time, and he did a great job in shredding the ATF. He also went into a section on how the ATF attempted to backdoor some Chevron deference into this. Even though the ATF says, we didn’t ask for Chevron, Judge Reed O’Connor says, you might not have asked for it, but what you’re asking us to do or to consider is Chevron-like in the way it would play out, so therefore you can’t do that. And then it gets really good. I’m going to jump down here to the application of Cargill. I’ll have a link to this decision, it’s like 64 pages, came out last night at about 10, 15 p.m.

Eastern. And it says, applying the guidance from both Cargill decisions here, forced reset triggers do not fire multiple rounds with a single function of the trigger, and thus 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. Just what I said earlier, the judge also, in every lawsuit, the people who are being sued, in this case, the Attorney General and the ATF, they try to challenge standing. We’ve seen many cases dropped or lost because of failure to secure standing. And ATF did it here, but the judge is like, hey, ATF, you changed the definition, and you’ve gone after individuals and companies alike, you’ve done search warrants, you have persecuted people, you’ve gone…

…and those things you have that we know you bought, they’re considered machine guns, and because you say currently you have no plans to persecute anybody, or no plans to prosecute further, you can change your mind, thus these people and these groups have standing. A little more, by continuing to characterize a single function of the trigger as a single constant rearward pull of the trigger, the defendants transform the required statutory focus away from the objective trigger mechanics to the subjective actions of the gun user instead. This is incorrect and is the same rewriting of the statute defendants already attempted and failed to do with bump stocks.

That was the Cargill case. For purposes of statutory interpretation, it matters not what human input is required to activate the trigger. All that matters is whether more than one shot is fired each time the trigger functions. As Cargill explained, courts cannot look to the shooter’s actions in deciding whether force reset triggers are machine guns. Indeed, the notion that the definition turns on the actions of an unnamed shooter is inconsistent with both the definition’s grammatical and statutory context. Shreds them. Absolutely shreds them. Judge Rita Connor did a hell of a job, and here’s the conclusion, because we’re all wondering, like, is it something that’s just for NAGR members or Texas Gun Right members? Check it out.

Conclusion. There is no denying the tragic nature of the Las Vegas shooting that motivated the final rule. But, no matter how terrible the circumstances, there is never a situation that justifies a court altering statutory text that was democratically enacted by those who are politically accountable. That responsibility belongs exclusively to Congress. The Constitution assigns such legislative choices to the appropriate elected officials, not life tenure judges and unelected bureaucrats. Rather than respect this intentional feature of our democratic system, the defendants, ATF, chose to advance a policy agenda wholly divorced from the NFA’s statutory text. Thus, to allow defendants unlawful action to stand would be to functionally rewrite the NFA.

That is not how our democratic system functions. Indeed, it is never a court’s job to rewrite statutory text. As Chief Justice John Marshall put it, it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Nothing more. This remains true even when shocking events may underscore the need for legislative change. And even when this prudent constraint produces undesirable results, one must remember that circumventing the democratic process undermines the animating policy goals upon which our system rests. A democratic path to change already exists. By jumping the gun, defendants robbed Congress of the ability to capitalize on political support to alter the statutory language following the Las Vegas shooting.

Indeed, multiple bills on this exact issue were pending in Congress when the defendants decided to act. None of these bills were given a chance to become law. As is often the case, public attention waned, taking with it the momentum for legislative action. But this result is even more pernicious than the mere inability to enact legislative change. Each time an agency circumvents the legislative process, it chips away at the most prudent reason for the separation of powers. That is, ensuring unelected and unaccountable individuals, like the ATF, do not make the law. This reason alone compels the court’s decision today.

For the foregoing reasons, and with the above admonitions in mind, this court grants the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and denies the defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment. Specifically, the court orders the following relief. 1. The court vacates the defendant’s unlawful classification of force-reset triggers as machine guns. 2. The court declares unlawful defendant’s determination that FRTs are machine guns. 3. The court enjoins the defendants, along with their respective officers, agents, servants, and employees, 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 to force-reset triggers that this court has determined is unlawful.

A. Initiating or pursuing criminal prosecutions for possessions of FRTs. B. Initiating or pursuing civil proceedings for possessing, selling, or manufacturing FRTs based on the claim that FRTs are machine guns. C. Initiating or pursuing criminal prosecutions for representing to the public of potential buyers and sellers that FRTs are not machine guns. D. Initiating or pursuing civil actions for representing to the public of potential buyers and sellers that FRTs are not machine guns. E. Sending notice letters or other similar communications stating that FRTs are machine guns. F. Seizing or requesting voluntary surrender of FRTs to the government based on the claim that FRTs are machine guns.

G. Destroying any previously surrendered or seized FRTs. And H. Otherwise interfering in the possession, sale, manufacture, transfer, or exchange of FRTs based on the claim that FRTs are machine guns. F. This scope of the 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 to the extent that it does not interfere with other courts, such as the Eastern District of New York Lawsuits Civil Jurisdiction over rare breed parties and other pending criminal cases against individuals already subject to prosecution.

F. The court further enjoins defendants from pursuing criminal proceedings or criminal enforcement actions against rare breed parties on the grounds that FRTs are machine guns. S. The court orders defendants to return to all parties including manufacturers, distributors, resellers, and individuals. All FRTs and FRT components confiscated or seized pursuant to their unlawful classification within 30 days of this decision. The court orders defendants to mail remedial notices correcting their prior mailing campaign that warns suspected FRT owners that possession of FRTs and FRT components was purportedly illegal. Every year, our country commemorates the revolution waged against the tyrannical executive.

To safeguard against future tyranny, our founding documents designed a system that prevents undue concentrations of power in order to protect important rights and to ensure that a legislative consensus is reached before enacting laws on the most important issues in society. Such foresight is especially prudent in cases like this one. Indeed, while this case may seem focused on firearms, it represents so much more. It is emblematic of the devastating problem that increasingly rears its head in federal courts. Rampant evasion of the democratic process, few issues more accurately underscore this problem than the present case. Our nation would do well to remember the very reasons and spirit that inspired our democratic system of governance in the first place.

So ordered the 23rd day of July, 2024, Judge Reed O’Connor, United States District Court in the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division. That’s the Fifth Circuit. So ATF’s FRT rule has been vacated. They’ve been ordered to give back all the seized FRTs, not only to individuals, but to manufacturers. Remember, they did a bunch of warrants and seized them in several places, and they can’t enforce their BS on anybody. That’s big. That is real big. Thank you to National Association for Gun Rights for pushing this case. When Rare Breed Triggers was having difficulty, thank you for helping them.

Thank you to Rare Breed Triggers for continuing the fight. Lawrence DeMonaco has done a lot of work. Him and his team have undergone a lot of stress and a lot of pressure and a lot of difficulty. And right now, they’ve been vindicated. Now, we’ll see. I assume, this is my personal opinion, I assume ATF will double down and appeal this. That’s my assumption. Now, I don’t recommend broadcasting you have them right now, if you do have them. Because even though Judge Reed O’Connor said the law, the rule, not a law, they want the ATF acts under rules to make law.

It’s vacated. It’s unconstitutional. ATF didn’t have that authority. You forgot about the Constitution. You don’t even have the ability to do this. Give them all back. Correct your notices. Send them to people who you threatened and fix it. But that’s the district court. So we still have the appellate and then en banc and then Supreme Court if the ATF chooses to go that way. It’s a big if because the Cargill case destroyed them and the same ruling was used on FRTs. So, not only are bump stocks back on the menu, FRTs are as well. Let me know what you think of this decision.

I think it’s a great one. If you want to join National Association for Gun Rights, there’s a link in the description of my videos that will tell you how to do that. I get nothing out of it. It just tells me you’re a guns and gadgets viewer. If you love the Second Amendment, hit that subscribe button to help the information get out here on YouTube. And you can also like the video, share it, comment down below. It helps here with the anti-gun YouTube algorithm. Appreciate y’all. Have a great day. FRTs are back on the menu. Take care.

See more of Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News on their Public Channel and the MPN Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News channel.