Imagine this. The government admits a law is unconstitutional. But, but, it says the court’s ruling should only apply to just a handful of people. Not you, not me, not the millions of other Americans that are negatively being affected by the same unconstitutional law. That’s exactly what the Department of Justice is trying to do right now in a major Second Amendment case. Yep. Last week, couple days ago, I told you how gun owners of America exposed the Department of Justice attorneys that were not following the Trump administration’s claim that the zero tolerance policy, the Biden era zero tolerance policy, had been abolished.

I’ll link that video for you. Check it out because that’s actually happening. GOA exposed it. And now we have another scenario here where the Department of Justice is being exposed by firearms policy coalition trying to undercut any Second Amendment wins that are accomplished in federal court. Hey everybody, welcome back to Guns and Gadgets where we break down current legal developments affecting our Second Amendment rights. Today, we’re diving into the latest Department of Justice tactic in a firearms policy coalition lawsuit that’s raising serious concerns. If you value your rights, hit the subscribe button.

Now it’s free. It doesn’t cost you anything. And let’s get into this. Before I go any further, I want to thank today’s sponsor, Blackout Coffee Company. I mean, look, patriots, it’s not just about coffee. It’s about living free and supporting American values. Blackout Coffee is a family-owned freedom-loving company in Florida, and every bag is roasted right here in the United States of America. Whether it’s our morning reaper, our two-way roast, which is my personal favorite, or our specialty teas or hot chocolates, Blackout Coffee has something for every freedom-loving American. And here’s the best part.

When you support Blackout Coffee, you’re supporting a company that unapologetically stands for the Constitution, the Second Amendment, and the same values we fight for here in this channel. Right now, if you head on over to blackoutcoffee.com slash gng and use code LaborDay25 at checkout, you’ll save 25% off your order for our Labor Day sale. That’s blackoutcoffee.com slash gng. Use code LaborDay25. Link is in the description. We don’t just drink coffee, we wake up with freedom in our cups. Join us at Blackout Coffee. All right, Firehouse Policy Coalition, FPC, they’re challenging a federal law that prohibits purchasing a handgun in a state other than the one you live in.

That’s known as the Interstate Handgun Purchase Ban, and the case is Elite Precision Customs versus ATF. Like, think of it this way. I could go to 15 minutes up the road, I can go into Virginia, or 35-40 minutes south down the road, I can go to North Carolina, and maybe I see a handgun that’s not available here where I live in East Tennessee. I should be able to buy it. I mean, I could do it if it was a long gun, why can’t I do it if it’s a handgun? Makes no sense.

Now, the case tests whether modern gun laws align with the constitutional interpretation of the Second Amendment, specifically the standards set in the Supreme Court decision, the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association versus Bruin, the Bruin standard. And here’s where it gets controversial. In DOJ’s brief, they said, and I’ll quote, if the court grants an injunction, that injunction should extend no further than to bar enforcement of any laws the court deems unconstitutional against the name plaintiffs specifically identified in the complaint. Because FPC has not identified any of its members other than the named plaintiffs, the government would have no way to know whom an injunction restricting enforcement of the challenged laws covers.

Here’s an explanation in English. Rather than a broad injunction preventing enforcement of the ban, the DOJ wants relief only to apply to the handful of people named in this case and one Texas retailer. I think it’s two people and one retailer. That means even if the laws ruled unconstitutional, it would still be enforceable against you or me or the millions of other Americans who aren’t in or named rather in that small group of people. Now, how about get rid of the entire unconstitutional infringement for everyone now, DOJ? How about that? How about you do your freaking job? Now, this approach strikes at the heart of how constitutional rights are enforced.

This is selective relief. Instead of a remedy for all similarly situated individuals, only the named parties get protection, even though everybody else is being affected negatively by the unconstitutional law or rule. Now, legal precedent is undermined here, if this goes that way. It could set a dangerous standard where only plaintiffs get rights, effectively denying justice to others. That would mean if there are 10 million gun owners, then the other 9,999,999 people not named in a lawsuit would have to sue as well to get their individual constitutional right recognized. Does that make sense? Oh, that’s what the DOJ wants.

It would have a chilling effect, potentially dissuading future lawsuits, since broad relief may become impossible. Now, FPC President Brandon Combs nailed it when he said this. He said, quote, the Trump DOJ scheme would gut nearly every lawsuit against the federal government unless and until the Supreme Court steps in. This isn’t just a threat to the Second Amendment supporters. It’s a threat to every American. The Trump administration must stop playing keep-away with constitutionally protected rights, and put an end to this misguided strategy to obstruct justice. Now, the DOJ’s brief also insists that the law is a presumptively constitutional commercial regulation, despite Bruin requiring historical validation.

Now, you might be wondering, is this new? Actually, many lawsuits allow class-wide or wider injunctive relief, even when not all future beneficiaries are identified. This DOJ position is unusual and arguably unprecedented. Normally, relief extends to all membership, not only precisely named people. Remember the pistol brace rule, when all of the groups scored victories where their members were protected? Not a single group had to supply a list, although the DOJ did try. Now, the DOJ wants to limit relief because they can’t specifically identify individuals, an argument without basis in historical practice.

You can’t find one law around 1791 when the Second Amendment was adopted where the historical tradition of firearms regulation required everybody to be named if the Second Amendment was going to apply to them. Now, this could mean that DOJ is okay with constitutional violations and having them persist if the groups don’t name all of their members. Now, what about the citizens who aren’t members? Do we just keep violating their rights? What happens next? Well, the court will rule on whether to adopt this narrow injunction approach, and if it does, FPC may have to appeal upward, potentially all the way to the Supreme Court.

This case could ultimately determine whether rights apply broadly or remain confined to litigants. I don’t know about you, but my rights do not stop at invisible fake-ass dotted lines on a map, and we should be able to buy any Second Amendment protected item anywhere in this country at any time as American citizens. Now, to wrap up, the DOJ’s new tactic in elite precision customs versus ATF threatens to limit constitutional relief only to the individuals named, and not us, the American people. It’s a deeply concerning precedent with wide-reaching implications, and the DOJ needs to get their head out of their you-know-what.

First, the DOJ attorneys tell gun owners of America they’re not changing any of their unconstitutional Biden-era anti-gun opinions, and now they don’t want constitutional rights to be enforced for all Americans? I mean, what the hell? Come on. Thank you all for watching. Let me know in the comments down below what your thoughts are on this. Do you think rights should apply universally or only to those litigating? I would love to hear your opinions. Subscribe to stay in the know. I’ll see you on the next video. Take care. [tr:trw].

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