BREAKING: ATF Pistol Brace Rule VACATED! | Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News

Here we are again. Another live stream. Hopefully this is going to get out there into the interwebs. I will wait until I see some folks before we start going with this because this is big, big, big news. Come on. Is this kind of connected? If y’all can see me, let me know. If not, I’m going to run right into this. All right, so we have some breaking news. About a half an hour ago, the Northern District of Texas, the Fort Worth District Court, which has, it’s a federal court in the fifth, which has the Mock v.

Garland case. That is Firehouse Policy Coalition’s case against the ATF for the pistol brace rule. We have a huge ruling to report. A huge ruling. The ATF’s pistol brace rule has just been vacated by the fifth circuit, the district court. Big, big news. I’m going to tell you what the judge said. I assume that we’ll hear more about this by August 5th because as of right now, the circuit court, the appeals court, is still looking to hear all of the pistol brace cases combined into one on August 5th, but FPC’s individual case was just vacated by the judge.

Let me read it to you so you understand what the judge is saying. I’m not going to read the whole thing, just the highlights. This is huge, huge, huge. Thanks to Mike over at CMMG for calling me and giving me the heads up. This just dropped because I was in my garage trying to be a little mobile, trying to move around here with his back. So this is what the judge said just now. It says, pending before the court are the plaintiff’s FPC’s motion and William Mock motion for summary judgment and brief and support, which was filed November 4th of 2013.

The defendants, the ATF also filed theirs and the Mickey Curie brief was filed November 22. Having carefully considered the briefing and applicable law, the plaintiff’s motion, FPC’s motion, is granted and the defendant’s motion is denied for the reasons stated herein. Now pay attention to hear what the judge said. I’m not going to go over the background. We know about the pistol brace rule. We know what it does. We know what they’re trying to do. We know it’s unconstitutional and illegal. The judge said this, in their motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff’s FPC at all claimed that the final rule violated the APA’s procedural requirements because one, it was not a logical outgrowth of the proposed rule.

Two, the defendants acted arbitrarily when they failed to consider important aspects of the problems presented and caused by the final rule. Three, the defendants impermissibly extended their statutory authority under the National Firearms Act of 1934, the NFA, meaning they don’t have the ability to make law, and the Gun Control Act of 1968. And four, it violates various aspects of the United States Constitution. Additionally, in the alternative, the plaintiffs, the government, argue that if the court were to find that the final rule was properly promulgated under the APA, then the NFA’s honoris and ahistorical regulation of short-barreled rifles, SBRs, which is commonly possessed by law-abiding individuals for lawful purposes, violates the Second Amendment.

I’m sorry, that’s not the government saying, that’s FPC. So the FPC is saying, look, if this rule is allowed to stand because you say it’s proper, then everything that is regulating SBRs violates the Second Amendment. So in their cross-motion for summary judgment, the defendants, the ATF, they first claimed that the injunctive relief sought by the plaintiffs is barred by the Tax Anti-Injunction Act because that relief would obstruct the assessment and collection of NFA tax. The government only cares about the taxes. Shocker, right? The defendants, the government, also argue that they are entitled, entitled, to summary judgment, because the final rule was properly promulgated under the APA and does not violate the Constitution.

Before addressing the merits, the court will begin with whether the AIA applies to the plaintiffs’ acts. So this is what the judge, I’m just going to read the, hey gals and guns, thank you very much, appreciate you. So the judge says, the plaintiffs challenge the rule, challenge to the rule, is not barred by the Tax Injunctive Act, meaning what they’re saying has nothing to do with what you’re claiming. It has nothing to do with taxes, which is cool, right? The judge also says that the final rule violated the APA procedural requirements by not being a logical outgrowth of the proposed rule.

The judge also said that the adaption of the final rule was arbitrary and capricious. Then the judge said, finally, number three, that the court need not address the plaintiff’s other procedural and constitutional claims because the ATF so badly violated what they were supposed to follow. The remedy, here’s what we need to pay attention to. Finally, the court turns to what the appropriate remedy is in this case. The plaintiffs, the FPC at all, request that the court vacate the final rule in its entirety and grant a permanent injunction and join in the defendant’s ATF from implementing, enforcing, or otherwise applying the final rule.

In response, the ATF, the defendants argue that the court should not vacate the final rule as there are more limited remedies that would redress the plaintiff’s injuries. Additionally, the defendants’ ATF claim that the court should deny the requested injunction because the plaintiffs have failed to carry their burden and the requested injunction is too vague. Mayhem, thank you. Jesse Meek, thank you. I called Nikki last night, told her you said you were interested in doing a live stream. She said, awesome. We’ll look forward to email from you. DLD, thank you, brother.

The proper remedy for finding that an agency failed to comply with the APA’s procedural requirement is vacator of the unlawful agency action, meaning vacate it, get rid of it in its entirety. While the defendants are correct that the APA does not require such a remedy, the Fifth Circuit considers vacator the default rule for agency action otherwise found to be unlawful, meaning get rid of it. It’s unlawful, it violates the Constitution. In rare cases, however, we do not vacate the action but instead remand for the agency to correct its errors. Single shot, thank you.

I appreciate you, man. Werewolf, thank you. Whether remand without vacator is the appropriate remedy turns to two factors and this is what we need to know here because this case is still going to probably continue to go forward and I’ll tell you why in a second here. One, the seriousness of the deficiencies of the action and that is how likely it is the agency will be able to justify its decision on remand and two, the disruptive consequences of the vacator. In this case, vacator is appropriate given the court’s conclusion that the defendant’s adoption of the final rule violated the APA procedural requirements.

An illegitimate agency action is void and therefore cannot be remanded as there is nothing for the agency to justify. Further, applying the vacator to the final rule to only plaintiffs is more akin to an injunction that would prohibit defendants from enforcing its unlawful final rule against only certain individuals. Timoteo, thank you very much, appreciate you. And indeed, there are meaningful differences between an injunction which is a drastic and extraordinary remedy and vacator which is a less drastic remedy. And this is because vacator does nothing but reestablish the status quo, meaning right back to the Constitution the way it was even the previous stuff on SBRs is unconstitutional, but they’re chipping away, all these cases are chipping away.

The status quo that existed for decades prior to the final rule going into effect last year, absent the unlawful agency action. Bearded buffoon, hey buddy, thank you. Thank you for giving me the heads up, buddy. Apart from the statutory basis on which the court invalidated an agency action, vacator neither compels nor restrains further agency decision making. Because the defendants fail to show that this is a rare case in which the court should deviate from the default rule, the court vacates the final rule on the grounds that the defendants, the ATF, violated the APA’s procedural requirements in promulgating it.

Because courts presume that the federal government will comply with its rulings, the plaintiffs requested injunctive relief is unnecessary and thus denied. Conclusion. For the reasons set out above, the court grants the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the final rule violated the APA procedural requirements because it was arbitrary and capricious and was not a logical outgrowth of the proposed rule. Denies the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment, denies the plaintiff’s request for permanent injunction, and vacates the final rule. So, where do we go from here? What does this mean? As of right now, there is no such thing as a pistol brace rule that was vacated.

You know that they will appeal. However, the courts might not do anything to stay this decision because the appellate court has already agreed they’re going to hear all five challenges to the pistol brace rule on August 5th. So, it’s already scheduled, it’s already docketed, and that’s going to be a huge hearing. And I’m going to do my best to cover that live. So, if you want to watch that, you want to know when I cover it, then please hit the subscribe button down below and also turn on the bell notification to all notifications.

It’s supposed to tell you when I put out new content or go live. This is huge. 3,700 plus people here, if I could ask you to do me a favor, just like the video and just like it so that more people get this information. This is huge USA Trucker, thank you very much. This is huge information for 10 plus million, 10 to 20 million people have pistol brace firearms and they don’t watch guns and gadgets. And they don’t stay up to date on the news of the Second Amendment because most people don’t know this exists.

They don’t know what’s going on and they have no idea that the final rule was even a thing. So, I ask you humbly as not just the content creator here, but somebody who cares about our fellow brethren who have these items, keep them in the loop. Just share it, like it, subscribe to the channel, commenting helps as well. We need our brothers and sisters to know what’s going on in this case because the last thing we want is for this hearing that’s on the 5th to somehow reinstate the rule and ATF to start knocking on doors and kicking doors in and unaliving people because they have a pistol brace firearm that was totally legal to own, purchase, possess, transfer and everything else for the last decade plus.

So, the good news is ATF’s rule has been vacated for the pistol braces in the 5th circuit at the district level court. The next good set of news is that all the other, all the cases, even this case that was just vacated, they’re all scheduled to be heard at the appellate level, the appeals court on August 5th. So, we need to stay tuned to what’s going on. I love each and every single one of you. I hope you have a great day. I’m feeling a little bit better today. I did three sessions on my tens unit last night and I think it helped and I’m glad, I’m glad that I’m moving a little bit today.

Not quite, maybe about 70% which is a lot better than I was the last couple days. I love you all. God bless you. Be safe, stay vigilant, carry a gun. Stay safe. I’ll see you on the next one. [tr:trw].

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