My name is Jared, and this channel is dedicated to bringing you the latest Second Amendment news, legal battles, and legislation affecting your right to keep and bear arms. Every day, I break down what’s happening in the courts, statehouses, and Congress, so that gun owners across the country can stay informed and stay engaged. If you care about the Constitution and defending the Second Amendment, make sure that you subscribe and turn on the notifications, because the fight for our rights is happening in real time, everywhere in this country, and we cover it here. Alright, let’s get into it.

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, the Fort Worth Division. The plaintiffs include Temple Gun Club, Jeffrey Howard, Jason Armstrong, and Clark Miracle. And they’re suing several federal officials in their official capacities, including the Attorney General of the United States, Pam Bondi, the acting director of the ATF, and ATF leadership, overseeing Texas enforcement. The lawsuit is seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, which means the plaintiffs want the court to do two things. First, declare the federal machine gun ban unconstitutional, and second, block the government from enforcing it. But here’s where things get interesting.

The lawsuit does not rely primarily on the Second Amendment, which is interesting here. Instead, it attacks something even more fundamental. Congress’s authority to pass the law in the first place. To understand the case, we need to go back to 1986. That year, Congress passed the Firearms Owner Protection Act, also known as FOPA. Now, during the debate on the Hill, an amendment was added that created what we now call the Hughes Amendment. That amendment added 18 U.S.C. 922-O to the federal law. And that provision made it illegal for civilians to possess any machine gun manufactured after May 19, 1986.

Now, importantly, machine guns manufactured before that date remained legal and still are legal, if properly registered, of course, with the National Firearms Act. But anything made after that date became essentially banned from civilian ownership. And that’s why transferable machine guns today cost tens of thousands of dollars because the supply is permanently frozen. And that’s a major investment. Speaking of investments, folks, retail investment demand in gold and silver has surged in recent months. J.P. Morgan said we could be seeing $8,500 an ounce for gold and silver surged 158% last year. This isn’t reason to panic. It is just a reason to adjust your investments and buy more gold and silver.

Did you know that gold has nearly doubled the performance of the S&P over the last 25 years? Call the proud Americans of the Patriot Gold Group today before it’s too late and mention guns and gadgets to get the best in class service from Patriots protecting Patriots. Patriot Gold Group has the No Fee for Life IRA where your IRA or your 401K can be in physical gold and silver. And if you meet the eligibility requirements, you could qualify for that No Fee for Life IRA on qualifying rollovers. Call 888-581-4989 for a free investor guide today. Patriot Gold Group is Consumer Affairs top rated gold IRA dealer 9 years in a row.

Call 888-581-4989 today. Alright, now here is the key argument in this lawsuit. The plaintiffs say Congress never had the authority to enact this ban. And the reason comes down to something called enumerated powers. The United States Constitution gives Congress specific powers and anything not listed is reserved to the states or to the people. That principle is reinforced by the 10th Amendment which says the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution are reserved to the states respectively or to the people. In other words, the federal government cannot just regulate anything at once. It must point to a specific constitutional authority.

Something we’ve been covering over in the Federalist Papers series. Check that out if you haven’t. It’s a great series and I’ve re-educated myself in this right now that we’re talking about. For gun laws, Congress almost always relies on one thing, the Commerce Clause. The Commerce Clause allows Congress to regulate interstate commerce, meaning commerce between the states. But according to the lawsuit, the authority has limits. The Supreme Court has said that Congress can regulate the channels of interstate commerce, the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, and activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. But the plaintiffs argue the machine gun ban goes far beyond that authority.

Because the law bans mere possession of a machine gun manufactured after 1986. Even if the firearm was made inside the state, never crossed state lines, and was never sold in interstate commerce. Which would mean, according to the lawsuit, the law criminalizes possession itself, not the commerce. And that’s the key distinction. The government often relies on something called substantial effects doctrine. That theory says Congress can regulate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. But the plaintiffs argue that that doctrine cannot justify this law. Why? Because possession of a locally manufactured firearm that never entered interstate commerce does not automatically affect commerce nationwide.

And they argue allowing that logic would give Congress unlimited regulatory power, which would contradict the Constitution’s system of limited government. The lawsuit also highlights something fascinating. When the machine gun ban was passed in 1986, Congress did not actually provide a detailed constitutional justification for it. In fact, according to this complaint, the legislative record is extremely thin. One statement from the amendment’s sponsor reportedly said, quote, I do not know why anyone would object to the banning of machine guns, end quote. That’s not exactly a deep constitutional analysis. And the plaintiffs argue that that lack of justification is part of the problem.

Because federal criminal laws must be grounded in clear constitutional authority. Now you might be wondering, why does that matter right now? Why does this case matter now? Well, here are two major reasons for it. First, the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association versus Bruin completely changed how courts analyzed gun laws. Under Bruin, modern gun regulations must be consistent with the national tradition of historic firearm regulation, historical tradition. And that standard has already been used to strike down several gun laws across the country. And second, and maybe even more importantly, courts are increasingly revisiting the limits of the Commerce Clause.

Some judges have already questioned whether certain federal gun laws exceed Congress’s authority. And if courts start taking those arguments seriously, and they should, it could affect not just the machine gun ban, but potentially other federal firearm laws as well. Right now, this case is at the very beginning. The complaint has just been filed. The federal government will respond, and the case will likely go through motions to dismiss constitutional briefing, and even a ruling from a district court. And it’s the Northern District of Texas, so this could be something that is very positive for We the People.

And given the states involved, it’s very possible this case could eventually head to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Also, very favorable to We the People. And if the courts rule against the government, this could potentially set up a major Supreme Court case. Now, to be clear, this case does not automatically mean the machine gun ban disappears tomorrow. But it does raise a very important question. Does the federal government actually have the constitutional authority to ban possession of certain firearms? Or has Congress stretched the Commerce Clause far beyond what the Constitution originally allowed? That’s the debate now heading into the federal court.

And depending on how these judges rule, this case could become one of the most important Second Amendment challenges in years, and possibly in some of our lifetimes. And if you get down to the nitty-gritty, go back to the Constitution, Congress cannot point to a single enumerated power in that document that gave them the ability to do what they did. All right, folks, that’s the latest development in the Temple Gun Club versus Bondi lawsuit challenging the federal machine gun ban. This is definitely a case that we’re going to keep an eye on because the constitutional arguments are big ones in this case.

And if the court agrees with the plaintiffs, it could force a major rethinking of federal gun laws. As always, I’ll keep you updated as this case moves forward. And if you found this breakdown helpful, please support the channel by hitting the subscribe button and sharing this video with your friends. And let me know down in the comments below. Do you think Congress had the authority to ban machine guns in 1986 in the first place? Thank you, Ronald Reagan. Or do you think this lawsuit is right to challenge it? Stay safe, stay armed, and stay free.

Thank you for watching. I’ll see you on the next one. Take care. Thank you. [tr:trw].

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